Quantcast
Utah

Hostess shutdown puts 600 out of work in northern Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 16, 2012 6:18 p.m.

    Now real life imitates art. All of us will be like Woody Harrelson in Zombieland, looking for Twinkees. Say it isn't so!!!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 16, 2012 8:48 p.m.

    I was a teamster when I worked my way through college working for UPS. THere , the relationship between management and union usually worked well together. This is an example of a union who couldn't see the forest through the trees and lost big in a battle with Hostesses venture capital owners. In this case, management will loose, employees will loose, the only ones who will come out with anything is perhaps the VC people from the scape sale... but that is even in doubt.

    Sad day when another American institution dies at the hands of stubborn Venture Capitalist and unions.

  • Scott C Ephraim, UT
    Nov. 16, 2012 10:42 p.m.

    When we don,t need more people on the dole here we are letting unions determine which companies live and die. Sad day for us Twinkie lovers.

  • Why would I? Farmington, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 12:42 a.m.

    "0h, I wish I were an Oscar-Meyer Hot Dog..." Hopefully they won't go the way of Twinkies.

    Labor unions need to adjust to the new economy, just like everyone else except Uncle Sam and his insatiable appetite for spending during the last 4+ years. If the US Government doesn't make some progress and avoid the big fiscal cliff looming just ahead, watch for many more companies to go belly-up, trade unions notwithstanding. After all, there's only so much in the pot and so many ways to slice the pie, so when it shrinks if stubborn folks don't adjust they lose it altogether.

    And here I wanted to enjoy another Ding-Dong. Oh well, maybe a hot dog instead will have to do.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 3:28 a.m.

    Good for Hostess, they are doing the right thing for the American people and workers and free enterprise. If these business and companies are not willing to share their wealth with those who created it then they don't deserve to keep it all for themselves and should close the doors. Its the american thing to do so they can send this business and jobs offshore to slave labor countries like the rest of the big box enterprises.

    I won't miss Hostess at all, they went out of business a long time ago when they changed to inferior ingredients in their foods so its no big deal.

    At least the workers won't be forced to work to live in poverty. Now they can go get a real job with welfare departments in the states and triple their earnings, be able to buy steaks and roast beef for the kitchen table with food stamps.

    Why does the US think being on welfare is so bad? It a wonderful life and don't have to work for it. Professional welfare dependents figured this out 20 years ago and drive Cadillac, BMW, Bentley, to the local food pantry's to get food.

  • AmPatriot Taylorsville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 3:39 a.m.

    Why doesn't the government step in and stop these business from shutting down to put workers out a job for spite and hate. Just so they don't have to share their wealth with its employees? Where is Obama to save these jobs and make business and rich share wealth with employees?

    The president has been harping on this sharing the wealth for 4 years, now he has an opportunist to step up and keep his promise and where is he? Covering up his other deadly crimes against america.

  • Bill Shakespeare Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 5:23 a.m.

    This is actually good news. It will make our nation more efficient and modern. All these people will now seek high-paying computer jobs.

  • Wayne Rout El Paso, TX
    Nov. 17, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    Unions eventually destroy their company...unless Obama will save them at the tax payers expense. Good employees don't need a union. No city can afford to use 600 jobs. The root cause, Obamacare, will take many more jobs and drive this country into the ground.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 17, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    Another example of union parasites devouring their host! There will be many more, unless Obama bails out the unions as he did in the UAW bailout!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 17, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    "At least the workers won't be forced to work to live in poverty. Now they can go get a real job with welfare departments in the states and triple their earnings, be able to buy steaks and roast beef for the kitchen table with food stamps."

    Ok, most on this site think I am a flaming liberal, but really 2Cents? Who was forcing these workers to stay in these jobs? No one forced me to stay unloading trucks at UPS at 4 am when I was a teamster. I took the job to get me through college, and when I didn't want to come home covered in box dust from head to toe, I got another job... no one forced anyone to do anything.

    I do think American capitalism has gone amuck in many ways - swapping profits for morality too often. But no one forces anyone to work for anyone. Lets swing back from the edge a bit here.

    This was a result of the same type of mentality that we find in Congress.... except not compromising will impact far more than just 18,000 low wage jobs.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    Unions did not destroy this company. It was destroyed by poor management and a flock of vulture capitalists and outfits similar to Bain Capital.

    The workers are the losers. The vultures will walk away with Golden Parachutes. One example being the CEO who just recently was handed a 300% pay raise. Greg Rayburn was being paid $100,000 PER MONTH for his "services."

    At least nine other top executives of the company also received massive pay raises, including one who received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one that brought his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

    But that's Obama's fault, isn't it?

    (Anyone may verify this information by Googling "hostess ceo salary")

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Nov. 17, 2012 8:50 a.m.

    Maybe the former workers can get their Union to replace the paychecks? Company management getting raises while workers benefits, retirement and pay is being lowered is unconscionable. Both sides are at fault... but the company is closed so it is too late now. The Union called their bluff and lost.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    Management wanted only temporary concessions . . . in order to get through this down economy. Built into the offer was a reversal of the concessions going forward. The company works with many different unions, including Teamsters. All the unions had accepted the temporary concessions except for the Bakers union, which decided to STRIKE. Pray tell, what would the Teamsters haul if the Bakers won't work?

    You Lefties can blame management all you want, but the bottom line is that Hostess would have remained open if the Bakers hadn't gone on strike. I've been hearing a lot lately about companies in trouble because of the heavy burdens imposed by unions, regulations, Obamacare, and the Fiscal Cliff. If management positions are so lucrative, then why don't more people prepare and apply for management positions?

  • Kia Kaha St George, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    Blame blame blame ... A company unwilling or unable to evolve its products into HEALTHY snacks. Evolve or die.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    Is it possible that Hostess would have been shut down no matter what the workers did?

    Was eventual closure of Hostess a goal of the Vulture Capitalists from the very beginning? Close it down after they had sucked every possible dollar from its carcass?

  • thelogicalone salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    I feel for anyone who loses a job and has to find another one, it's not going to be easy. This isn't just about Twinkies and Ding Dongs, they also make bread--think about hamburger and hot dog buns and all the restaurants who purchased these products. Prices could easily increase

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    Sorry folks, but those of you solely blaming the the unions for the demise of this company are intellectually lazy (just as lazy as blaming the President for anything and everything that goes wrong. Hint: think Congress.).

    This company has been in decline for over a decade. They FIRST declared bankruptcy in 2004, long before the economic meltdown. Since then, the employees have taken about 30% in pay cuts, even before this last round of "only taking an 8% cut."

    The company had created a serious debt load of nearly $1B. New directions and products the company attempted, flopped.

    Try combining this with the fact that sales were declining as consumers were moving to healthier options.

    Do the unions have some blame in this? Of course. Pensions are a nearly dead way to handle retirement anymore. Forcing the company to fund them like they did 50 years ago is untenable.

    But, there were a variety of factors at play with Hostess- not just Unions, and not President Obama. Quit being lazy and think before you post. It might save us all some time.

  • Eddie Syracuse, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    Unions only care about their management and how they can rip off the companies they work for. They all want to come to work and have meetings and sit around and talk and do no work and then get the big bucks. They will stick up for those who sleep on the job, come late to work everyday and take longer breaks and lunch times than is authorized. I have seen it over and over and over and over again.I agree that good workers do not need a union. They will work hard and if management tries to rip them off, they leave for a better job. I did, and now I am making over $90,000. per year and enjoying life as I stand up for my company and work hard for them. Unions just need to go away and let common sense rule along with good hard workers. Try it, you may like it.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Let's hope someone else will pick the business up... even perhaps in China, Japan or India.

    That's the way it seems to go... Union demands close companies who then move overseas where the labor is cheaper. Thanks, unions, for running yet another business out and into the hands of our world competitors.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:25 a.m.

    The Hostess shutdown is the strategy of business to take over our federal government in the same way as they have the state and local governments. The object is to punish the American people for voting the wrong way. A secondary motive may be objection of President Obama himself, not necessarily the policies.

    American freedom allows private companies to come and go as they please, and nothing says they cannot use their weight to influence government. However, when they use their corporate power to override the will of society and people it is a crime against the American society and people. There is nothing that says the people through their government cannot prohibit a criminal business operation.

    It is my hope that the brand of Hostess will be banned from the American scene and the names of the management/owner team be released to the public. While prison is not a possibility the American people should ban the brand and shun it’s owners.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    I'm surprised that we haven't deemed Hostess (and Twinkies, in particular) 'too big to fail.' Why not give Hostess a bailout and save those union jobs?

    Whatever the poor management decisions, whatever you think about 'vulture capitalism', the fact is that if those employees had come back to work when they were told to, they would have jobs today.

    Companies aren't in business to create jobs. They are in business to make money. This is a simple principle. The Union seemed to forget it. I have not heard good things about the management of Hostess over the years, but the union shot itself in the foot here.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 17, 2012 10:50 a.m.

    Just so I am clear, the workers (lets leave unions out of this for a minute) have already taken a 30% cut in compensation, and they are being asked to take another 8% cut in compensation while at the same time the upper management is seeing an increase in their salaries from 30-50% and it is the greedy workers, that are killing this company? Very interesting concept.

    I really doubt that the ownership and management at Hostess are doing anything but cheering, because now they can move their operations offshore and pay next to nothing to their workers. Why is the American worker who wants to make a living wage "the problem" and the union that tries to protect that worker the problem and the CEO's and venture capitalists who take every dime they can out of a company for themselves and then move it offshore are the heroes. Doesn't make sense to me.

    I am all for paying CEO's great salaries if they produce, but the new trend to pay the CEO's high six and seven figure salaries and bonuses while asking the line worker to take huge cuts is simply wrong.

  • Mctejman Farmington, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 11:35 a.m.

    It's very sad that people were striking had to lose their jobs!!!!! Having said that, wouldn't it be hilarious is Hostess sold the Ding Dong brand to Phizer?

  • sally Kearns, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 11:39 a.m.

    Our family had a similar experience. We found employment in another state. It turned out to be a positive move for us. Fortunately, we had food storage and savings to live off of for eight months. Our children refused to drink the powdered milk, so I made yogurt and added jam to it. We had less to move with all the food storage we used up.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 17, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    "Another example of union parasites devouring their host! There will be many more, unless Obama bails out the unions as he did in the UAW bailout!"

    Mountainman, lets stop back from the edge of silly rhetoric and look at these two scenarios. Had Americans heavy manufacturing capability been lost to the level it would have been with the loss of Chrysler and GM, it frankly would have posed a national security issue. We still have to keep capability to mobilize should the need arise. We must maintain a heavy manufacturing base in this country. If you really thought it was about unions, you have been listening to an overly simplified view of the world.

    Now Hostess, while a wonderful company and some delicious products, provides nothing to our national security....unless you want to toss ho-hos 0r cupcakes at your enemy.

    I do believe the unions was being unrealistic here. These owners were in this to cash the company out.... rebuilding was never really on the table. The union played their hand poorly.... and they lost in a high stakes game.

  • Bearone Monroe, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    Only ones that win in this are the union bosses who you can be sure are still drawing their union paychecks from union dues.

    Would be wonderful if the employees were to buy the company. They probably know how to run it right.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Nov. 17, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    Don't bail them out. bailouts hurt things, they don't help things. I will miss the fruit pies.

  • Joey D WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Unions once served a purpose long, long ago. Now they are more a cancer eating away at a companies very existence. They absolutely serve no purpose now days.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    Nov. 17, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    oneoldman, yeah, keep on repeating vulture capitalist vulture capitalist. Blame Romney, blame Bush. Unions are good, fair honest organizations only trying to help us all have better lives.
    Unions refused to re negotiate with lower pay and cutting benefits just like the rest of us has had to endure the past 2+years.
    So instead, they all lose jobs. And not just one area. It will affect every state in the country.
    Well done Obama/unions/entitled citizens.
    Next!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 2:11 p.m.

    AZ Rods -- such foolishness. You're telling us workers on the production line should accept lower pay while at the same time those at the top are increasing their pay to astronomical levels?

    Just wait, buddy. They'll be coming for you too someday.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Nov. 17, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    Too bad Hostess' initials weren't GM.

    I guess you don't qualify to be bailed out if the government feels you're contributing to obesity in America.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    Good ol' unions. They did it again. Of course, they refuse to take responsibility for it just as always.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 4:33 p.m.

    Consider that a business operation only exists because of the need, opportunity and permission of society.

    Consider also that the creation of a business operation requires the investment from many sources such as the community, and the governments all the way up to the national just for the opportunity.

    Then there are the workers who will invest time from their lives at a lower cost than it is worth. Much of the profits will come from the selling of the employees labor at a greater cost than it’s purchase price.

    then there are the consumers who will invest their money and in fact supply all the funds to pay for labor, materials, buildings, machines and even the profit itself.

    Then there are the other business operations that provide the raw materials and such.

    Then there is the businessmen and their investment of some of their surplus money.

    So when a business closes, most of the investors lose, their welfare, their time and perhaps their future. The businessmen may lose some of their money, but their only loss may be some future profits.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 18, 2012 3:29 a.m.

    This hurts a lot in the short term. The long term is a defferent story however. Orher bakeries will now have to produce more and it will take people to do the work.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Nov. 18, 2012 8:48 p.m.

    For everyone bashing the GM bailout decision, I have a question: What kind of car do you drive? If it's not a GM or Chrysler brand car, you have no room to complain because you were part of the problem, not part of the solution. All GM needed was Americans to BUY American cars and the Feds wouldn't have needed to step in with everyone's tax dollars. We as consumers have the choice and while many of us actually purchased new GM vehicles, not enough folks did.

    So blame yourselves!!

    The cash-for-clunkers program should have been limited to American cars and then we wouldn't have sent tens of millions of dollars to Japan out of our economy. A close relative used the program to buy a Chevrolet. What did you buy if you used it?

    Again, blame yourselves!!

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    It sounds like the "Ding Dongs" that ran Hostess tried the "Twinkie defense" with the unions, and got "snowballed"...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 19, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    @SLC gal... I like it.... well done.

    @Az

    "Unions refused to re negotiate with lower pay and cutting benefits just like the rest of us has had to endure the past 2+years."

    Ok, here goes a first for me.... ROFL. Never have typed that before, but it is just too appropriate in this case. Lets try using some facts here and look at average us hourly wage for the last few years adjust for inflation - just to make things fair.

    October 2012 - $16.71
    October 2011 - $16.88
    October 2010 - $17.18
    October 2009 - $16.98
    October 2008 - $16.47
    October 2007 - $16.45
    October 2006 - $16.40
    October 2005 - $15.98
    October 2004 - $16.18

    You get the idea. So if you took a hair cute in pay, it wasn't because the nation was doing the same thing. In fact, in non-inlfation adjusted numbers the average hourly wage has gone from the last year of Bush being at $18.27 an hour in 2008 to $19.79 an hour this month.

    So baring some kind of new math.... wages are up. Net worth is another issue... different beginning.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 19, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    re:UtahBlueDevil

    This is just getting started blue devil. Wait until the Obama tax increases hit small business and the Obamacare mandates kick in as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see 15% unemployment after 4 years. As far as rich guys taking their money and leaving - you are EXACTLY correct!! Rick guys and gals didn't get that way by being stupid and they aren't going to set around and watch their company profits get eaten alive by an 800 lb porker federal government and their union bosses. These rich guys that you hate so much could care less - they will make their money elsewhere and they will employ alot of people elsewhere as well. The losers - US!!!! Remember this - elections do have consequences. The only meaning 'FORWARD' will have is over the edge of the fiscal cliff!