How will Hostess Closing affect Rail Traffic?

[SD80MAC]

The strike was the final nail in the coffin. Can't put all the blame on one party here, the union is just as guilty as the management.

[Mr. Tops]

I'll take Little Debbie over Hostess, but glad to hear Sun Capital is interested in the company. Hopefully, with new management, the old Hostess employees will get what they deserve. You can blame the union all you want, but they are just standing up for what is right and what the workers deserve. Giving in/backing down won't get you anywhere. Who do you think the union is? It's basically the voice of the workers, so if anyone is blaming the union, you're blaming the workers themselves. You may have to live through a few rainy days, but it looks like there will be sunshine ahead for them.

[CSX_CO]

The strike was the final nail in the coffin. Can't put all the blame on one party here, the union is just as guilty as the management.

While I am in a Union, and on the railroad they serve mostly as being a lawyer on 'retainer' I can't help but notice that every time a Union 'stands up for what is right' and a plant closes, the Union leadership at the top doesn't lose their jobs. Pretty easy to say 'no' to concessions as a Union leader, when you're not going to be losing any income when the plant closes. UAW in Indy wouldn't give any concessions to GM to keep the stamping plant open, and stood in the way of another firm coming in and running the plant and keeping people employed. So, now Indy has a large specialized industrial complex just off downtown, that is shut down, and the city is left wondering what the heck their going to do with it. With all the job losses, we wonder why we have a Government debt that is out of control, home foreclosures, etc.

Practice Safe CSX

[AARR]

You may have to live through a few rainy days, but it looks like there will be sunshine ahead for them.

I will not pass judgement yet because I don't know enough from either side to do so.

But I can share that The Detroit Freepress wrote the employees were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay for 20% of their health insurance (which is costing companies record increases). These are fairly typical concessions in these medicore economic times. It is unlikely whoever picks up the product lines will hire many of them back.

I also heard, but have not confirmed, the CEO received performance bonsus while the company was in perilous condition.

[Typhoon]

But I can share that The Detroit Freepress wrote the employees were asked to take an 8% pay cut and pay for 20% of their health insurance (which is costing companies record increases). These are fairly typical concessions in these medicore economic times.

What is not typical is that the employess just took concessions in 2009 when the company last exited from bankruptcy. 3 years later the company is looking for more? Seems there are larger issues there than employee costs.

I will say, it does makes a great FOX news headline. "Union thugs keep you from eating Twinkies!"

[Racer]

.....the Union leadership at the top doesn't lose their jobs. Pretty easy to say 'no' to concessions as a Union leader, when you're not going to be losing any income when the plant closes.....

WORD! 95% of Unions do not stand for what they used to do. The leaders just want their money and don't care about the employees losing their jobs. The Union that caused all this for Hostess is not going to loose his job, he actually MADE MONEY out of this. Him and his 5+ other Vice Presidents of the Union (Why do they have 5 VPs to begin with?). Union leaders are like modern slave drivers and their employees are their slaves for money.

[Typhoon]

.....the Union leadership at the top doesn't lose their jobs. Pretty easy to say 'no' to concessions as a Union leader, when you're not going to be losing any income when the plant closes.....

WORD! 95% of Unions do not stand for what they used to do. The leaders just want their money and don't care about the employees losing their jobs. The Union that caused all this for Hostess is not going to loose his job, he actually MADE MONEY out of this. Him and his 5+ other Vice Presidents of the Union (Why do they have 5 VPs to begin with?). Union leaders are like modern slave drivers and their employees are their slaves for money.

Modern slave drivers? Wow......

The union leaders can not strike without a strike vote by the union members. Thats right, the MEMBERS are the ones who decide if they will strike or not. Now, I am far from an expert on slavery, however I don't think that slaves were every given the right to decide their fate. Also, I hate to point out this little fact, union leaders are paid by union dues, IF there are no union dues, there is no payment. As unions get smaller, it is harder for the union to pay the leaders, so their pay goes down. If you really think that a union leader does not care if employees lose their job, you are mistaken.

[Racer]

Alright, perhaps I was too extreme with my slave driving statement (It was intended to be a metaphorical statement). But people got to admit that majority of unions are really getting greedy with the tough times many business are facing. I do concur that the Union leaders have nothing to worry about if a plant closes. They don't lose their jobs and they are still protected. Like I said previously, the Union leaders actually made money off this Hostess closing and the employees suffered. They should all have been happy that they had jobs and now they are paying the consequences for their greed and that's not right for the small group of workers who just wanted to keep their jobs.

[M.D.Bentley]

Chrisracer8903, were you ever a member of a union ? If companies treated the workers fair unions would not exist. Most union officers put out more than the get back. They get a couple of bucks per man and maybe expenses. I would LOVE, NOT to pay the 2nd highest dues in the nation. More money in my pocket. But at what cost ? The employer would offer substandard benefits if any. Remember that the company is in business to make money. I could not find where they took a strike vote. Can anyone steer me to that article ? Thanks.

[AARR]

One thing I do not understand is how the employees are better off with the company going out of business and everyone losing their jobs? Mr Tops said it was better for them in the long run but I don't understand how when it is not very likely whomever picks up the select product lines will open up clsoed plants or hire the same people back.

Most likely their fate is working for $10 an hour.

Anyone share with me what I may not be understanding?

[AARR]

It was reported on WRIF radio that discussions will begin again. Something was said about Bankruptcy Court mediating but I did not catch all of that part. Hope it works out!

I supposed no one will report any rail activity at Hostess plants at this point

[Typhoon]

I also heard, but have not confirmed, the CEO received performance bonsus while the company was in perilous condition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

" Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent, even though the company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to the WSJ.

The situation isn't specific to Hostess. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay, according to a July report. "

Yep Chris, it was those greedy union thugs and their slave driving union leaders......

[SD80MAC]

Yeah, like I said, management is to blame as much as the workers. But the fact that some people here seem to think of union workers as angels really scares me. There are good unions that actually stand up for their employees and work with the company to resolve conflicts, and there are a lot of bad ones that try and overstep their boundries and get as greedy as the greediest of management. This whole "Us vs. Them" mentality in certain workplaces baffles me. It's up to one of the parties to be the bigger man and take a step towards working together. Bringing everyone in the company down just because you wanted $2 more an hour (not in this case, just speaking in generalities) seems pretty lame to me, and certainly doesn't leave anyone any better off. Well, except for the Union Bosses and CEO's.

I hear stuff like that from railroaders all the time. "Trainmaster _____ is a huge jerk, so I'm gonna go slow and not work my best! See if I ever do him any favors again!" Wow, really? So you're going to make your company and the customers suffer just because you have an issue with some guy? And on the other side "Conductor ______ is a prick, so I'm gonna make him work this cut of cars, spin some power, go out and bring a freight in and yard it. And oh look, it's about to rain!" Again, really? That's not exactly taking a step in the direction of cooperation. The whole thing seems quite silly to me. I'm not a professional railroader, so take this for what it is, someone on the outside looking in. But anyone with any sense will tell you that's not good behavior for a positive work environment.

[AARR]

I also heard, but have not confirmed, the CEO received performance bonsus while the company was in perilous condition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

" Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent, even though the company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to the WSJ.

The situation isn't specific to Hostess. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay, according to a July report. "

Thanks for finding that, Typhoon.

I don't have a problem with CEO's "earning" big bucks when their companies are doing well. But when the companies are not doing well and the employees are being asked to take concessions and layoffs that's when I have an issue with CEO's getting big bonuses. But I am not sure I want government deciding either as it certainly hasn't worked the last 4 years because the differential continues to grow despite the rhetoric.

Now I wonder if anyone will post something about rail traffic to Hostess . I am surprised no one has at least commented on the place near Toledo .

[Typhoon]

I also heard, but have not confirmed, the CEO received performance bonsus while the company was in perilous condition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

" Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent, even though the company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to the WSJ.

The situation isn't specific to Hostess. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay, according to a July report. "

Thanks for finding that, Typhoon.

I don't have a problem with CEO's "earning" big bucks when their companies are doing well. But when the companies are not doing well and the employees are being asked to take concessions and layoffs that's when I have an issue with CEO's getting big bonuses. But I am not sure I want government deciding either as it certainly hasn't worked the last 4 years because the differential continues to grow despite the rhetoric.

Now I wonder if anyone will post something about rail traffic to Hostess . I am surprised no one has at least commented on the place near Toledo .

The Wonder Bread bakery in Hodgekins, IL did not have any railroad cars at it yesterday.

[MP73point4]

Yeah, like I said, management is to blame as much as the workers. But the fact that some people here seem to think of union workers as angels really scares me. There are good unions that actually stand up for their employees and work with the company to resolve conflicts, and there are a lot of bad ones that try and overstep their boundries and get as greedy as the greediest of management. This whole "Us vs. Them" mentality in certain workplaces baffles me. It's up to one of the parties to be the bigger man and take a step towards working together. Bringing everyone in the company down just because you wanted $2 more an hour (not in this case, just speaking in generalities) seems pretty lame to me, and certainly doesn't leave anyone any better off. Well, except for the Union Bosses and CEO's.

I hear stuff like that from railroaders all the time. "Trainmaster _____ is a huge jerk, so I'm gonna go slow and not work my best! See if I ever do him any favors again!" Wow, really? So you're going to make your company and the customers suffer just because you have an issue with some guy? And on the other side "Conductor ______ is a prick, so I'm gonna make him work this cut of cars, spin some power, go out and bring a freight in and yard it. And oh look, it's about to rain!" Again, really? That's not exactly taking a step in the direction of cooperation. The whole thing seems quite silly to me. I'm not a professional railroader, so take this for what it is, someone on the outside looking in. But anyone with any sense will tell you that's not good behavior for a positive work environment.

I agree with what you're saying. What would management gain by constantly trying to irritate their workers? How does an unhappy work force help any company? And by the same token, how can anyone think that by slowing down, not doing quality work, etc. is possibly going to help a company prosper? The whole us vs. them mentality really puzzles me nowdays. 80 years ago maybe, but with all the state and federal laws pertaining to workplace safety, pay, discipline and all, I question the value vs. cost of union membership.

[dmitzel]

Any of you guys remember old Eastern Airlines? The Union refrain during the strike that led to Eastern's liquidation was "Full Pay to the Last Day." Well, at least they got their wish. I recall a strike was also the last nail in the Rock Island's coffin.

I understand the frustration with paying the senior execs (CEO, CFO, etc.) bonuses and high pay when a company is circling the drain, but think about it for a moment. Like it or not those guys usually will bail when they sense the firm is leaving the rails for greener pastures, they'll land on their feet more often than not, and the Board of Directors (or in the case of a bankrupt, yet still operating business - the Trustee) will do what they need to in order to keep the management on the payroll. Worse would be for a mass management exodus of key leadership - which would only hasten to close the doors before something can be worked out to keep the doors open. Don't believe it? Just look what happened to Borders Books. If you were a bankruptcy creditor and the CEO, COO and others left you'd call in your IOU's faster than you can say liquidation. Chapter 7 = no jobs for anyone.

Now, many C-whatevers aren't saints by any means. Regardless, the Unions need to take a hard look at their strategy in the global marketplace. Someone can and will make your Twinkies faster and cheaper than Interstate Brands could - and likely with a non-union workforce. Those Hostess brand names are worth a mint to the company's creditors - the only stakeholders that matter to the Bankruptcy court - and they want their bills paid by any means necessary, even if that means shutting the whole works down. What made me breathe a sigh of relief when Proposal 2 went down in defeat was knowing there wouldn't be a "giant sucking sound" of Michigan jobs going south of our border (with Ohio) to the South. I just can't believe that the Unions wanted to risk taking the little life in the state economy out with such a radical change to the State constitution, which would permanently price our state out of the marketplace for jobs. It ain't the '50s and '60s anymore in the US of A, as the old Second world which used to be behind the Iron Curtain is now competing for our jobs with the Third world - competition we never used to have.

So, ignore reality (as much as it sucks) at your own peril - just don't drag me to the unemployment line with you.

[NSSD60M]

Any of you guys remember old Eastern Airlines? The Union refrain during the strike that led to Eastern's liquidation was "Full Pay to the Last Day." Well, at least they got their wish. I recall a strike was also the last nail in the Rock Island's coffin.

I understand the frustration with paying the senior execs (CEO, CFO, etc.) bonuses and high pay when a company is circling the drain, but think about it for a moment. Like it or not those guys usually will bail when they sense the firm is leaving the rails for greener pastures, they'll land on their feet more often than not, and the Board of Directors (or in the case of a bankrupt, yet still operating business - the Trustee) will do what they need to in order to keep the management on the payroll. Worse would be for a mass management exodus of key leadership - which would only hasten to close the doors before something can be worked out to keep the doors open. Don't believe it? Just look what happened to Borders Books. If you were a bankruptcy creditor and the CEO, COO and others left you'd call in your IOU's faster than you can say liquidation. Chapter 7 = no jobs for anyone.

Now, many C-whatevers aren't saints by any means. Regardless, the Unions need to take a hard look at their strategy in the global marketplace. Someone can and will make your Twinkies faster and cheaper than Interstate Brands could - and likely with a non-union workforce. Those Hostess brand names are worth a mint to the company's creditors - the only stakeholders that matter to the Bankruptcy court - and they want their bills paid by any means necessary, even if that means shutting the whole works down. What made me breathe a sigh of relief when Proposal 2 went down in defeat was knowing there wouldn't be a "giant sucking sound" of Michigan jobs going south of our border (with Ohio) to the South. I just can't believe that the Unions wanted to risk taking the little life in the state economy out with such a radical change to the State constitution, which would permanently price our state out of the marketplace for jobs. It ain't the '50s and '60s anymore in the US of A, as the old Second world which used to be behind the Iron Curtain is now competing for our jobs with the Third world - competition we never used to have.

So, ignore reality (as much as it sucks) at your own peril - just don't drag me to the unemployment line with you.

There's some $7-8/hr mentality there. Without Unions, usher in the slave trade, as well as the "giant sucking sounds" of the CEO's stashing their millions in the Caymans.

[MagnumForce]

While that is true, does someone with no skills at all working on an assembly line or loading steel tubes into a machine really deserve 25 bucks an hour or do they deserve something closer to 12-15 an hour?

[Saturnalia]

Hostess was not brought down by the union in full, but it was the final blow. Thing is, the union screwed themselves by not giving into demand. They knew the company was about to sink. They, as always, point to upper-level raises, but those are for retainment, and if you spread those out to all the union employees, it's not going to raise their wages much, if any.

Thing is, most (if not all) of these employees are replaceable. Heck, there are plenty of people who would fill the positions for minimum wage!

Same story for these Wal-Mart employees who want raises. They're paid, on average, $5 over the minimum, and Walmart gets 5 million job applicats yearly, and many would work for the minumum. Therefore, Wal-Mart isn't worried. I wouldn't be suprised if management would like them to walk out, so they can fill their shoes with newbies who'll take a lower wage AND not unionize.

In other news, the NHL. They're fighting over revenue, but they're not playing games so that "new" revenue is non-exsistant. Basically, both are fighting over who gets a dollar that doesn't exsist, and they're screwing themselves in the process, because these gains will more than likely be erased by the stoppage.