>>>Hostess sounds like the GM of the bakery industry.
>>>
>>>But never fear, the solution is obvious! According to the bakers' union, "Despite Greg Rayburn’s insulting and disingenuous statements of the last several months, the truth is that Hostess workers and the union have absolutely no responsibility for the failure of this company. That responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the company’s decision makers."
>>>
>>>Soon, Hostess' operations and brands will be for sale for X cents on the dollar. The unions can put their money where their mouths are, buy up the lot and under their faultless, enlightened direction achieve snack-cake Utopia.
>>
>>While that would have two undersides ( 1. they wouldn't have a clue how to run the company because they were never really informed about anything important, so they can't make uniformed decisions, 2. they will be doomed by the banks et al, lest they provide a bad example to other such unions), but if they have the balls to do that, my fingers will be crossed.
>
>Unions don't take risks. With something like 18,700 Hostess employees, at say $50/month dues, they're pulling in nearly a million a month. Or they were, anyways.
>
>Times like this, the RnF usually starts taking a hard look at their union leadership. They were paying those guys $1M per month... for what?

So they didn't get abused by the union thugs and bullys.

It amazes me that the Teamsters actually agreed to a contract while this union didn't. I would have expected a few prominent bakers union members to disappear or suddenly get more wealthy so they do what the Teamsters force on them.