Twinkie, Twinkie, little star...

My good friend Monkey Butt took the opportunity of Time Machine to ask me what all the buzz was with Hostess.  Don't ask, that's just what she does.  You can see my reply easily enough, but then I went on Facebook and saw people actually defending the union that put them out of business.

"Oh, it's a Bain Capital thing," They said.  "Ruthless corporate raiders refused to negotiate with the poor defenseless union."

I've had enough.

Let us re-evaluate the situation.  FACT:  a box of HoHos has consistantly been two dollars higher than the similar product made by Little Debbie.  FACT:  this was caused by, in part, union wages and pension requirements that priced the company out of competition.  FACT:  The Teamsters recognized that the situation was unsalvageable and agreed to the harsh concession Hostess needed to even try to stay afloat.  FACT: The baker's union refused to bend, even though any reasonable group would have said, "Hey, they will close the company if we don't accept.  Our people having jobs at all should be our first priority."  FACT:  the company had little choice to close.  In fact, let's hear how the Teamsters reacted to the closing, in a released statement:

“The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process,” the statement read. “BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.”
Hmm, doesn't sound like the BCTGM will be welcomed into the Teamsters anytime soon.

FACT:  27% of Hostess' work force (the 5,000 represented by the BCTGM) cost 100% of 18,500 people their jobs.  Does this absolve Hostess their responsibility in the collapse?  Certainly not, they gave both unions reasons to distrust them.  But the Teamsters put their workers first, while the BCTGM (which undoubtedly stands for "Buncha Chumps out To "Get" Management") just said, "F'em all."

In the end, Hostess may have folded with the concessions.  There was no guarantees.  There was a wealth of stupid moves committed over the years- and let's not forget how many of those were concessions TO unions- and there may not have been time to fix it.  However, the employees WOULD have still had a job at Christmas.  They WOULD have had a 25% stake in the company- and a much greater say in how to fix things.  And they might have had a shot at part of their pension- instead of it all being disbursed at a judge's discretion.

In the interests of fairness, I went over to their website to see if they had anything to say in their own defense.  But like Hostess, their site has apparently crashed.

And the Bain Capital thing?  Well, Bain makes it's money taking struggling businesses and either rebuilding them to thrive if they can, or dividing them up so the viable parts have a chance of surviving if they can't.  That is the FACT.  And that is what will happen to Hostess now.  It was up to the BCTGM to decide which side of the line Hostess would come down on.  Ask THEM why they chose #2.