[HoosierDaddy]

These comments followed the above referenced story. I am not affiliated with these events. Dean


The other side of the storyexhostess bakerNovember 16, 2012 12:32 PM
I "was" a non-union employee at Hostess Brands until this happened. The BCTGM and the striking workers are only telling the media one side of the situation so here is some of the other... Yes the company stopped paying into the MEP (multi employer pension) fund last fall, but since I've been in the workforce, going on 3 decades, I have rarely seen any company even offer a pension fund option. Usually it's just a 401k. Hostess offered the 401k to employees but it would not start for a couple years. These people expected the company to totally bankroll their "retirement". Many would retire after reaching the criteria then move along and work elsewhere. Yes the company was instituting an 8% 1st year pay cut, but everyone was getting the cut. I was not happy about it so I began looking for another job instead of sabotaging the one I had without having another to fall back on. These idiots will tell you they would rather make zero than $14/hr, which would have been the wages with the cut. Yes the company increased insurance costs, but the union doesn''t tell you that the employees contribution is in line with all other employers these days. Previously, the union workers only had to pay a few dollars a week for coverage which was a great deal for them but times have changed and they were lucky to have had it at that cost for so long. Most of the employees were lazy and entitled. They would sit in the break room and get paid if their machine was down for any reason. The sanitation crew would sit outside all day long preaching about how the company is stupid and failing without realizing that they have a hand in it by sitting there not doing their jobs and collecting pay. This was a set up job by the International Union from the word go. At the local information meetings prior to the strike, the International rep flatly stated that the strike purpose was to cause liquidation. They did not want any demands met because they wanted the company to go under. They sold this to the highly uneducated workforce by claiming a buyer was waiting. What buyer would want to buy the unions outrageous demands and have to deal with a militant workforce that would rather force a company under than work for more than fair wages/benefits? None I tell you. Someone will buy the branding, someone may even buy some of the facilities, but do not think that a company will want this workforce. These fools were suckered. The ones who weren't suckered were threatened and intimidated by union officials if they support their agenda. These people instead of peacefully exercising their right to strike, instead committed violence and threatened violence of the peple who were showing up to work. What kind of person would bring their small children to a picketline and have them stand in the entrance trying to prevent a tractor trailer from entering? Are these the kind of employees anyone would want? Nope. Soon these people will regret their actions, if they haven't already. Most openly spoke about collecting 99 weeks of unemployment and going on goverment subsidies instead of working a job. By the way, all of those who did not cross in my state will be denied unemployment because they refused work. Why would the union do this to it's employees? Well it wanted to set a precedent to other companies not to expect concessions during negotiations. They sacraficed 18,000+ jobs at Hostess for this. The union did not even go to the bargaining table, instead it agreed to accept the negotiations of the Teamsters in the matter. The BCTGM then would not even return phone calls from the company to even discuss the situation. The plan was in place and the sold it to the mostly G.E.D. educated workforce. Call me a company man or whatever else you like, but the facts are the facts. Hostess management in thepast screwed things up but this was the last chance to try and pull itself together. The BCTGM just had other ideas. I will survive and move along. I have a college degree and a work record of performing my job even if I was unhappy about my wages/benefits. I guess this was just a thinning of the herd because alot of these fools who already live paycheck to paycheck will lose what little they have now and expect the rest of our taxes to support their lazy dumba$$es. The company should have asked Judge Drain to void the contract and then terminate the employees who did not return. The employees who were working (new hires and temps)