RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:22 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 308 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
If Sun Capital buys the company, keeps the union, and returns to profitability, our righties are going to be pissed, almost as pissed as they were when Obama saved the auto companies.

They want to blame the unions, and they want to see unions destroyed. They'd cheer our nation being destroyed, as long as the unions were destroyed too.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:38 pm
Posts: 3073
I wonder if the pensions will still be intact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
I wonder if the pensions will still be intact.

We'll see. At least this company sees that it's horrible and stupid management that caused this, NOT the workers.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:23 pm
Posts: 7389
Location: the big mikan
It isn't over yet. The baker's union and Hostess agreed to an attempt at mediation today. Hostess did not get permission to liquidate as they had requested.


that's good. one hopes a settlement can be reached. i wonder if the other unions are influencing the bakers.

_________________
Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences. - Robert Louis Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:39 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307

Yep, they were reduced all right. All the way down to 663,000 in March of 2009. Of course they would have stopped anyway. The occupant of the oval office has very little to do with the course of an economy in general or a particular recession. That is why this is not Barack Obama's recession. What Obama did through the stimulus was create a bottom floor where the economy could not descend into depression. That..a chief executive can do. It's done through government spending. It's the only way. Would McCain have continued with Bush's initial TARP action? I don't know...but I doubt it. That would have made John McCain a modern day Herbert Hoover. Sitting in the oval office with his thumb up his ass, while the country nosedived into another great depression.

But this is how your argument always goes lame and utterly into the realm of political partisanship.

If this is as honest as you get, you're utterly and flagrantly wasting everybody's time with your disingenuousness.


Actually 361,000 in March of 2009 according to BLS. A 58% decrease from the January 2009 high of 818,000.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000 ... w=net_1mth

Government spending is not the only tool and Keysian economics has its limits (as Obama has learned). McCain would do whatever economists would have told him to do. He knows jack about economics.

Herbert Hoover did not sit in the Oval office with his thumb in his ass. That is another liberal myth. Hoover implemented the following from 1930 to 1933:

Smoot Hawley tariffs (the last of his tariff bills that cut off free trade)
High wage policies (trade unions loved and priced workers out of the labor force)
Increased government spending from 16.4 to 21.5 percent of GNP.
Encouraged banks to loan money through the National Credit Corporation.
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to subsize businesses with money that banks wouldn't loan.
Signed the Revenue Act of 1932 that raised taxes and doubled the top marginal rate from 24 to 63 percent.
Increased gasoline taxes.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to spur new home loans and reduce foreclosures.
Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (public works programs).
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to provide government secured loans to financial institutions, farmers, and railroads.

FDR actually campaigned on balancing the federal budget. Once elected he doubled down on all of Hoover's programs.

Quote:
Commenting decades
later on Hoover’s administration,
Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the
architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s
policies of the 1930s, explained,
“We didn’t admit it at the time,
but practically the whole New
Deal was extrapolated from
programs that Hoover started.”


http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/2012111 ... ALweb1.pdf


Last edited by miwingman on Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:40 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

that's good. one hopes a settlement can be reached. i wonder if the other unions are influencing the bakers.

No.

It's pretty easy to see what's happening. The threat to close down was a bluff, and the union called their bluff. Now the company has begged for mediation.

And, luckily, a smart company may be coming to bail the idiots who run Hostess out. You can bet this - while the workforce stays, the idiots who ran the company will be out of a job.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Actually 361,000 in March of 2009 according to BLS.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000 ... w=net_1mth

Government spending is not the only and Keysian economics has its limits (as Obama has learned). McCain would do whatever economists would have told him to do. He knows jack about economics.

Herbert Hoover did not sit in the Oval office with his thumb in his ass. That is another liberal myth. Hoover implemented the following from 1930 to 1933:

Smoot Hawley tariffs (the last of his tariff bills that cut off free trade)
High wage policies (trade unions loved and priced workers out of the labor force)
Increased government spending from 16.4 to 21.5 percent of GNP.
Encouraged banks to loan money through the National Credit Corporation.
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to subsize businesses with money that banks wouldn't loan.
Singed the Revenue Act of 1932 that raised taxes and doubled the top marginal rate from 24 to 63 percent.
Increased gasoline taxes.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to spur new home loans and reduce foreclosures.
Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (public works programs).
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to provide government secured loans to financial institutions, farmers, and railroads.

FDR actually campaigned on balancing the federal budget. Once elected he doubled down on all of Hoover's programs.



http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/2012111 ... ALweb1.pdf

Bullshit. More right-wing re-writing of history. People that lived then knew the truth - that's why the shantys were called "Hoovervilles".

When the starving Bonus Army came to town, Hoover had the veterans burned out of their camp and shot like dogs.

That's what Republicans think of veterans.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 7380
No.

It's pretty easy to see what's happening. The threat to close down was a bluff, and the union called their bluff. Now the company has begged for mediation.

And, luckily, a smart company may be coming to bail the idiots who run Hostess out. You can bet this - while the workforce stays, the idiots who ran the company will be out of a job.

GoU


Ummm ... it was the bankruptcy judge that called for the mediation. Hostess had not talked to the baker's union since August.

_________________
"To Be Is to Do" - Plato
"To Do Is to Be" - Socrates
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do" - Sinatra


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:23 pm
Posts: 7389
Location: the big mikan
No.

It's pretty easy to see what's happening. The threat to close down was a bluff, and the union called their bluff. Now the company has begged for mediation.

And, luckily, a smart company may be coming to bail the idiots who run Hostess out. You can bet this - while the workforce stays, the idiots who ran the company will be out of a job.

GoU



i hold a brief neither way. i am just thinking of the potential suffering of obese twinkie addicts as they go through withdrawal. the christie video was indication enough.

_________________
Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences. - Robert Louis Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Ummm ... it was the bankruptcy judge that called for the mediation. Hostess had not talked to the baker's union since August.

I know how mediation works. Best guess is that Hostess is the ones who asked for it. But mediation always say they call the sides together, so no one has to be seen publicly as having caved.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307
Well, well, well. A few new developments. First, the company wants to give out another $1.75 million in bonuses for the big shots.

Second, the company and union have agreed to mediation, and the liquidation is on hold.

Third, it seems there is a group interested in buying the company. Even MORE interesting is what [urlhttp://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/19/hostess-sun-buyout/?iid=EL=]they had to say about it[/url]:

Private equity firm Sun Capital Partners wants to buy bankrupt bakery Hostess Brands Inc., Fortune has learned.

The proposal would be to operate Hostess as a going concern, including reopening the shuttered factories and continuing union representation of Hostess workers.

Sun Capital privately expressed interest in acquiring Hostess earlier this year, but the bakery's creditors chose for an alternate reorganization plan that ultimately failed. Following Friday's liquidation, Sun reengaged by contacting Hostess advisor Perella Weinberg Partners. It also plans to contact the relevant labor unions.

"I think that we could offer a slightly better, more labor-friendly deal than what was on the table last week," says Sun co-CEO Marc Leder, in an interview with Fortune. "We also think that one point the unions have made is that there hasn't been a great amount of reinvestment in the business. We've found that investing new capital into companies like this can be very positive for brand, people and profitability... We would look to invest in newer, more modern, manufacturing assets that would enable the company to become more productive and to innovate."


Wow. Now we have a BUSINESS saying that the unions were right, and they think with decent management, a still-unionized Hostess can be a profitable concern.

Explain that, righties.

GoU


So now you found a private equity firm that you like? Explain that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:04 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884

Actually 361,000 in March of 2009 according to BLS. A 58% decrease from the January 2009 high of 818,000.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES00000 ... w=net_1mth

Government spending is not the only tool and Keysian economics has its limits (as Obama has learned). McCain would do whatever economists would have told him to do. He knows jack about economics.

Herbert Hoover did not sit in the Oval office with his thumb in his ass. That is another liberal myth. Hoover implemented the following from 1930 to 1933:

Smoot Hawley tariffs (the last of his tariff bills that cut off free trade)
High wage policies (trade unions loved and priced workers out of the labor force)
Increased government spending from 16.4 to 21.5 percent of GNP.
Encouraged banks to loan money through the National Credit Corporation.
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to subsize businesses with money that banks wouldn't loan.
Signed the Revenue Act of 1932 that raised taxes and doubled the top marginal rate from 24 to 63 percent.
Increased gasoline taxes.
Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to spur new home loans and reduce foreclosures.
Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act (public works programs).
Created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to provide government secured loans to financial institutions, farmers, and railroads.

FDR actually campaigned on balancing the federal budget. Once elected he doubled down on all of Hoover's programs.



http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/2012111 ... ALweb1.pdf


That's it? That's all you have to say about it? You want to debate my comment about Herbert Hoover? Take a fucking hike. You're worthless drivel on this forum would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking tiresome. This is not Obama's recession. Anybody who says it's Obama's recession is expelling EIB gas. You want some cred? Come here with something besides what you hear on Limbaugh and Hannity.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307
The deal with Sun Capital Partners could be promising. They seem willing to invest where Hostess was unwilling and they appear to have the money to do it. Maybe this why the bankrupcy court and the Justice Department slowed down proceedings.


Unwilling? Maybe if they didn't have to deal with a dozen unions, 372 union contracts, stupid work rules, and hundreds of millions of dollars a year in pension fund contributions they could have consolidated and/or updated some of the plants, distrubtion centers, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

So now you found a private equity firm that you like? Explain that.

The article mentioned that they specialized in companies in bankruptcy. In other words, they would take a failed company, and turn it around, even if they had a union workforce (which they would bargain in good faith with).

To me, that sounds like a good deal. Someone who builds businesses, and ones that pays good wages.

Whereas Mitt Romney would take successful companies, buy them, load them with debt, suck the wealth from them, steal the workers pensions, ship their jobs to China, and then, after they had made millions of profit, they'd put them into bankruptcy so the government would forgive them of all the money they owed, even if their profit had been far greater than their debt.

Which business model do you think is better for America?

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Unwilling? Maybe if they didn't have to deal with a dozen unions, 372 union contracts, stupid work rules, and hundreds of millions of dollars a year in pension fund contributions they could have consolidated and/or updated some of the plants, distrubtion centers, etc.

Sorry, but that's what they were supposed to do with the concessions the unions gave up the last time they went into bankruptcy. They updated nothing, and instead gave the management huge bonuses.

But it seems the new company sees no problem with the unions. They know it was bad, greedy management, not the unions, that caused this company to fail.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307

That's it? That's all you have to say about it? You want to debate my comment about Herbert Hoover? Take a fucking hike. You're worthless drivel on this forum would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking tiresome. This is not Obama's recession. Anybody who says it's Obama's recession is expelling EIB gas. You want some cred? Come here with something besides what you hear on Limbaugh and Hannity.


Don't you see? Obama is doing the same thing as Hoover did. And is getting the same result. The only difference is that you love Obama and you have always been told that Hoover did nothing. Hoover did a whole lot and none of it worked.

Is that all you have? u jus repeet what limba and hannty say. u got no cred. Brillant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:28 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307
The article mentioned that they specialized in companies in bankruptcy. In other words, they would take a failed company, and turn it around, even if they had a union workforce (which they would bargain in good faith with).

To me, that sounds like a good deal. Someone who builds businesses, and ones that pays good wages.

Whereas Mitt Romney would take successful companies, buy them, load them with debt, suck the wealth from them, steal the workers pensions, ship their jobs to China, and then, after they had made millions of profit, they'd put them into bankruptcy so the government would forgive them of all the money they owed, even if their profit had been far greater than their debt.

Which business model do you think is better for America?

GoU


I think you are drawing a distinction without a difference. Private equity is private equity. They are not the boogie man.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/ ... cuts-back/

Quote:
In the latest sign of trouble in the alternative investment world, Florida-based Sun Capital Partners has decided to refocus its $1.3 billion internal hedge fund after suffering losses on several investments. The fund will now focus solely on debt investments instead of both debt and equities.


Quote:
Among the biggest losers for Sun Capital’s hedge fund was its 20 percent stake in Sharper Image, which filed for bankruptcy in February 2008. The firm has been selling its depleted position in the specialty retailer since then and has also moved to reduce its exposure to equities in general over the last six months.

The hedge fund also invested in both Chrysler and the auto finance company GMAC along with Cerberus Capital Management. Sun Capital has decided to refocus the hedge fund on debt investments, including high-yield bonds and leveraged loans, which are trading at giant discounts as a result of the global credit crisis.


Quote:

Sun Capital’s private equity arm focuses on buying distressed companies on the cheap in the hope of fixing their operations and later selling them for a profit. It raised $6 billion from a number of institutional investors in 2007 for its fifth private equity fund. Among the investors in Sun Capital Partners V L.P. are the endowments of Colgate University, the Trustees of Tufts College and several funds of funds managed by Goldman Sachs, according to statements to investors.

Both Sun Capital’s private equity fund and its hedge fund unit have also suffered losses from their investments in the apparel maker Kellwood.

The firm, run by Rodger R. Krouse and Marc J. Leder, has experienced several write-downs on its portfolio over the last year including the bankruptcies of the Mervyn’s department store chain, the Lillian Vernon catalog company and the Jevic Transportation trucking company.


Emphasis on "on the cheap".


Last edited by miwingman on Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

Don't you see? Obama is doing the same thing as Hoover did. And is getting the same result. The only difference is that you love Obama and you have always been told that Hoover did nothing. Hoover did a whole lot and none of it worked.

Is that all you have? u jus repeet what limba and hannty say. u got no cred. Brillant.

Yeah, Hoover shot and burned out starving vets. Who could have seen that it wouldn't work?

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I think you are drawing a distinction without a difference. Private equity is private equity. They are not the boogie man.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/ ... cuts-back/







Emphasis on "on the cheap".

Whereas Bain just buys healthy companies, sucks the wealth out of them, and puts them into bankruptcy so they don't have to pay their debts.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:49 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 16884

Don't you see? Obama is doing the same thing as Hoover did. And is getting the same result. The only difference is that you love Obama and you have always been told that Hoover did nothing. Hoover did a whole lot and none of it worked.

Is that all you have? u jus repeet what limba and hannty say. u got no cred. Brillant.


You're as singlemindedly moronic as it gets. Nothing worked because Hoover did nothing. Obama (and I must admit, George Bush in the last days of his Presidency) kept this country from descending into another great depression. But you only believe what you hear on FOX and the EIB.

Yep...brillant that's me, you ignoramus.
Image
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAH!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307
Right. Sun Capital is really different.

Quote:
It was through private equity that one Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, amassed his wealth — and, it turns out, it was through private equity that Mr. Romney first met Mr. Leder. A couple of months after the blowout in Bridgehampton, Mr. Leder was host for a fund-raiser at his Boca Raton home for Mr. Romney’s campaign. But the connection goes back even further. Years ago, a visit to Mr. Romney’s investment firm inspired Mr. Leder to get into private equity in the first place. Mr. Romney was an early investor in some of the deals done by Mr. Leder’s investment company, Sun Capital, which today oversees about $8 billion in equity.


Quote:
To his critics, he represents everything that’s wrong with this setup. In recent years, a large number of the companies that Sun Capital has acquired have run into serious trouble, eliminated jobs or both. Since 2008, some 25 of its companies — roughly one of every five it owns — have filed for bankruptcy.

Among the losers was Friendly’s, the restaurant chain known for its Jim Dandy sundaes and Fribble shakes. (Sun Capital was accused by a federal agency of pushing Friendly’s into bankruptcy last year to avoid paying pensions to the chain’s employees; Sun disputes that contention.) Another company that sank into bankruptcy was Real Mex, owner of the Chevy’s restaurant chain. In that case, Mr. Leder lost money for his investors not once, but twice.

Yet Mr. Leder doesn’t seem to be suffering too much himself. In fact, he is living so large that he can’t avoid the limelight. Last July, he used part of his personal fortune to join a group of investors in buying the Philadelphia 76ers. In December, he was spotted on St. Bart’s with Russell Simmons, of Def Jam and Phat Farm fame, and Rachel Zoe, the celebrity stylist. That again landed him in The New York Post, which dubbed him a “private equity party boy.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/busin ... d=all&_r=0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489
Oh, this is RICH. Suddenly you come out attacking private equity Romney!

You have no principles at all. You are just against whatever we're for. If we came out against abortion, I swear you'd argue for it!

GoU :rofl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:19 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2307
Oh, this is RICH. Suddenly you come out attacking private equity Romney!

You have no principles at all. You are just against whatever we're for. If we came out against abortion, I swear you'd argue for it!

GoU :rofl:


I'm not attacking private equity. I'm laughing at you because you think Sun Capital is so different from Ripplewood, Bain, etc. Just because Leder said one thing about updating Hostess plants.

They are going to look at Hostess and come to same conclusion of other management teams. Consolidate profitable operations, shutdown product lines that are losing money, buy up smaller profitable growing companies and sell. This will involve plant shutdowns, layoffs, getting rid of stupid union work rules, and reducing labor costs.

What do you think they are going to do? Offer more money and benefits to the unions? Give them seats on the board? Sit down with them and ask them how they should run their business? :rw)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:37 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36489

I'm not attacking private equity. I'm laughing at you because you think Sun Capital is so different from Ripplewood, Bain, etc. Just because Leder said one thing about updating Hostess plants.

You posted an article attacking both Romney and private equity. Your problem, not mine.
Quote:
They are going to look at Hostess and come to same conclusion of other management teams. Consolidate profitable operations, shutdown product lines that are losing money, buy up smaller profitable growing companies and sell. This will involve plant shutdowns, layoffs, getting rid of stupid union work rules, and reducing labor costs.

Sorry, they can NEGOTIATE, but they don't get rid of rules. But unions can be quite accommodating if the company is reasonable and makes a good case.

And if they want to reduce labor costs, they could stop paying millions and millions to management that has failed, instead of demanding more for a CEO that drove the company into bankruptcy. It's hilarious how you think a company's success is because of the CEO, but when it fails, it's because of the workers.
Quote:
What do you think they are going to do? Offer more money and benefits to the unions? Give them seats on the board? Sit down with them and ask them how they should run their business? :rw)

You know, a SMART boss WILL talk to his workers, about how things are ran, because the workers know the jobs better than anyone. That's how Harley-Davidson turned around, by forming a partnership with the unions and workforce, and let the workers tell THEM how to build a quality motorcycle.

But you could never do that, because you hate the working class.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:38 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 7380

I'm not attacking private equity. I'm laughing at you because you think Sun Capital is so different from Ripplewood, Bain, etc. Just because Leder said one thing about updating Hostess plants.

They are going to look at Hostess and come to same conclusion of other management teams. Consolidate profitable operations, shutdown product lines that are losing money, buy up smaller profitable growing companies and sell. This will involve plant shutdowns, layoffs, getting rid of stupid union work rules, and reducing labor costs.

What do you think they are going to do? Offer more money and benefits to the unions? Give them seats on the board? Sit down with them and ask them how they should run their business? :rw)


If you look into the history of Sun Capital, and I doubt you will, that is not their history.

_________________
"To Be Is to Do" - Plato
"To Do Is to Be" - Socrates
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do" - Sinatra


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 308 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group