Mich. GOP approves right to work amid protests

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - In an audacious flex of political muscle, Republicans in a single day reached the brink of a goal that for years has seemed an all-but-impossible dream: making the labor bastion of Michigan a right-to-work state.
The GOP majority used its superior numbers and backing from Gov. Rick Snyder to ramrod legislation through the House and Senate on Thursday, brushing aside denunciations and walkouts by helpless Democrats and cries of outrage from union activists who swarmed the state Capitol hallways and grounds. At one point, police used pepper spray to subdue demonstrators who tried to rush the Senate chamber.
"Shame! Shame on you!" protesters chorused from the gallery as the Senate voted. Earlier, security guards removed a man who yelled, "Heil Hitler! Heil Hitler! That's what you people are." Another shouted, "We will remember in November."
Rules require a five-day wait before the House and Senate vote on each other's bills, which would prohibit making payment of union fees a condition of employment. They are scheduled to reconvene Tuesday, when Michigan could become the 24th state with right-to-work laws if the measures are quickly enacted and Snyder signs them, as he has pledged to do.
A victory in Michigan, a cradle of organized labor, would give the right-to-work movement its strongest foothold yet in the Rust Belt, where the 2010 election and tea party movement produced assertive Republican majorities that have dealt unions one body blow after another.
But compared with Indiana and Wisconsin, where votes to curb union rights followed weeks or months of pitched battles, Michigan acted in the blink of an eye. GOP legislative leaders were saying as late as Wednesday that it was uncertain whether the issue would come up in a lame-duck session moving toward adjournment. Snyder had said repeatedly since his election two years ago that the topic was divisive and not on his agenda.
Thursday morning, however, the governor called a news conference with House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville to announce that not only would right-to-work legislation be considered, it would be placed on a fast track. By sundown, bills had been introduced and passed without committee votes or public hearings.
Republicans insisted the measures had been given adequate consideration, saying the topic was familiar - particularly after the protracted campaign that preceded voters' overwhelming November rejection of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have barred right-to-work laws.
"We've come to the point where this issue is on the table," Snyder told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's time to step up and make a decision and not let this fester."
He and legislative leaders denied opponents' contentions that the bills were designed to weaken unions by depriving them of funds needed to bargain effectively or were retaliation for the ballot initiative, which organized labor spearheaded. They said a "freedom to work" law would make unions more responsive to members' needs and give employees freedom to decide whether to accept union representation.
"This does not change collective bargaining and this is not anti-union," Bolger said. "It is pro-worker."
Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof said a number of factors influenced the decision to push ahead, including Snyder's endorsement and the ballot initiative, which put right-to-work in the spotlight. Primarily, however, Republicans recognized they had enough votes to capture a long-sought prize, he said.
"I wouldn't say there was a sense of urgency, but a sense of opportunity," Meekhof said.
Democrats contended Republicans, who lost five House seats in the November election, wanted to act before a new legislature takes office next month. In passionate floor speeches, they accused the majority of ignoring the message from voters and bowing to right-wing interest groups.
"These guys have lied to us all along the way," Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer said. "They are pushing through the most divisive legislation they could come up with in the dark of night, at the end of a lame-duck session and then they're going to hightail it out of town. It's cowardly."
Eight protesters were arrested for resisting and obstructing, state police Inspector Gene Adamczyk said. At one point, officers barred entry to the Capitol as a safety measure, saying the building was overcrowded. It was reopened after unions successfully petitioned Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk for an order overturning the move.
In the end, the bills sailed through - even though some Republicans were opposed. The Senate approved a measure dealing with private-sector workers 22-16. As Democrats stormed out of the chamber, a second bill applying to government employees was passed, 22-4.
The House approved a private-sector employee bill 58-52. Both chambers are expected to approve two identical measures next week. Leaders said they would include exemptions for police and firefighters, who are covered by existing law requiring binding arbitration for their labor disputes.
A $1 million appropriation was tacked onto the bills for what a House spokesman described as implementation and worker education activities. Spending bills are legally protected from being overturned by statewide referendums.
United Auto Workers President Bob King, who joined the protesting crowd, said the bills' passage was "a very partisan, polarizing attack."
A White House spokesman said President Barack Obama continues to oppose right-to-work laws.
"Michigan - and its workers' role in the revival of the U.S. automobile industry - is a prime example of how unions have helped build a strong middle class and a strong American economy," the spokesman said.
The GOP majority used its superior numbers and backing from Gov. Rick Snyder to ramrod legislation through the House and Senate on Thursday, brushing aside denunciations and walkouts by helpless Democrats and cries of outrage from union activists who swarmed the state Capitol hallways and grounds. At one point, police used pepper spray to subdue demonstrators who tried to rush the Senate chamber.
"Shame! Shame on you!" protesters chorused from the gallery as the Senate voted. Earlier, security guards removed a man who yelled, "Heil Hitler! Heil Hitler! That's what you people are." Another shouted, "We will remember in November."
Rules require a five-day wait before the House and Senate vote on each other's bills, which would prohibit making payment of union fees a condition of employment. They are scheduled to reconvene Tuesday, when Michigan could become the 24th state with right-to-work laws if the measures are quickly enacted and Snyder signs them, as he has pledged to do.
A victory in Michigan, a cradle of organized labor, would give the right-to-work movement its strongest foothold yet in the Rust Belt, where the 2010 election and tea party movement produced assertive Republican majorities that have dealt unions one body blow after another.
But compared with Indiana and Wisconsin, where votes to curb union rights followed weeks or months of pitched battles, Michigan acted in the blink of an eye. GOP legislative leaders were saying as late as Wednesday that it was uncertain whether the issue would come up in a lame-duck session moving toward adjournment. Snyder had said repeatedly since his election two years ago that the topic was divisive and not on his agenda.
Thursday morning, however, the governor called a news conference with House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville to announce that not only would right-to-work legislation be considered, it would be placed on a fast track. By sundown, bills had been introduced and passed without committee votes or public hearings.
Republicans insisted the measures had been given adequate consideration, saying the topic was familiar - particularly after the protracted campaign that preceded voters' overwhelming November rejection of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have barred right-to-work laws.
"We've come to the point where this issue is on the table," Snyder told The Associated Press in an interview. "It's time to step up and make a decision and not let this fester."
He and legislative leaders denied opponents' contentions that the bills were designed to weaken unions by depriving them of funds needed to bargain effectively or were retaliation for the ballot initiative, which organized labor spearheaded. They said a "freedom to work" law would make unions more responsive to members' needs and give employees freedom to decide whether to accept union representation.
"This does not change collective bargaining and this is not anti-union," Bolger said. "It is pro-worker."
Senate Majority Floor Leader Arlan Meekhof said a number of factors influenced the decision to push ahead, including Snyder's endorsement and the ballot initiative, which put right-to-work in the spotlight. Primarily, however, Republicans recognized they had enough votes to capture a long-sought prize, he said.
"I wouldn't say there was a sense of urgency, but a sense of opportunity," Meekhof said.
Democrats contended Republicans, who lost five House seats in the November election, wanted to act before a new legislature takes office next month. In passionate floor speeches, they accused the majority of ignoring the message from voters and bowing to right-wing interest groups.
"These guys have lied to us all along the way," Senate Democratic leader Gretchen Whitmer said. "They are pushing through the most divisive legislation they could come up with in the dark of night, at the end of a lame-duck session and then they're going to hightail it out of town. It's cowardly."
Eight protesters were arrested for resisting and obstructing, state police Inspector Gene Adamczyk said. At one point, officers barred entry to the Capitol as a safety measure, saying the building was overcrowded. It was reopened after unions successfully petitioned Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk for an order overturning the move.
In the end, the bills sailed through - even though some Republicans were opposed. The Senate approved a measure dealing with private-sector workers 22-16. As Democrats stormed out of the chamber, a second bill applying to government employees was passed, 22-4.
The House approved a private-sector employee bill 58-52. Both chambers are expected to approve two identical measures next week. Leaders said they would include exemptions for police and firefighters, who are covered by existing law requiring binding arbitration for their labor disputes.
A $1 million appropriation was tacked onto the bills for what a House spokesman described as implementation and worker education activities. Spending bills are legally protected from being overturned by statewide referendums.
United Auto Workers President Bob King, who joined the protesting crowd, said the bills' passage was "a very partisan, polarizing attack."
A White House spokesman said President Barack Obama continues to oppose right-to-work laws.
"Michigan - and its workers' role in the revival of the U.S. automobile industry - is a prime example of how unions have helped build a strong middle class and a strong American economy," the spokesman said.
"Mich. GOP approves right to work"
So much for the quality of autos made in MI...
The Truth About
Right to Work for Less Right to Work Hurts Everyone
Workers in states with right to work laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other statesâlower wages, higher poverty and infant mortality rates, less access to the health care they need and poorer education for their children.
Lower Wages
The average worker in a right to work state makes about $5,333 a year less than workers in other states ($35,500 compared with $30,167).1 Weekly wages are $72 greater in free-bargaining states than in right to work states ($621 versus $549).2
Fewer People with Health Care
21 percent more people lack health insurance in right to work states compared to free-bargaining states.3
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
Right to work states have a poverty rate of 12.5 percent, compared with 10.2 percent in other states.4 Moreover, the infant mortality rate is 16 percent higher in right to work states.5
Lower Workersâ Compensation Benefits for Workers Injured on the Job
Maximum weekly worker compensation benefits are $30 higher in free states ($609 versus $579 in right to work states.6
More Workplace Deaths and Injuries
According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of workplace deaths is 51 percent higher in states with right to work, where unions canât speak up on behalf of workers.
Â
This is the reason why we voted the Repubs down....nothing but DICTATORSÂ !
 @scychan Did you forget about the Affordable Health Care Act?
Right to Work is about giving companies the ability to fire people without cause, leaving no recourse for the employee that was fired unjustly.
Well, this is what Democracy looks like!  Michigan was losing companies to Indiana which recently passed RTW legislation.
Â
If Unions are so great (and I believe they have their place) you shouldn't have to force folks to join.
 @Getov Mylon The problem with that is that many people who don't want to join the unions also want the same pay and benefits that the unions got for their members.
 @OrcasThunder "The problem with that is that many people who don't want to join the unions also want the same pay and benefits that the unions got for their members."
Â
Yes, that is certainly true, however, non-union members do not receive all benefits of members. Shop stewards, arbitration support and the like. To me, joining the Union would also mean cheap insurance against something untoward happening to my nice car in the parking lot. I have no problem paying the dues even if not forced to do so. Methinks those loudest opposing RTW laws would be the first to drop their Union representation if not forced to join.
 @Getov Mylon Under State law they are required to provide the same pay and benefits to non-union workers. That should include legal assistance.
 @OrcasThunder I might be wrong but I would highly doubt that the Union would be required to provide legal assistance or shop stewards to non-members.
 @Getov Mylon "Yes, that is certainly true, however, non-union members do not receive all benefits of members."
Really?
State law requires that the unions bargain for ALL workers, not just union members.
Â
 @Getov Mylon If by democracy you mean cramming unpopular legislation down the throats of citizens before newly elected legislators come in and the unpopular legislation is no longer crammable....then yes....this is democracy. Â
Â
Republicans do not learn. Â
 @seattleways Oh! You mean like ObamaTax'NCare! Â
Â
Or doesn't that count as a cram-down?
Â
Payback in all its glory.
 @Getov Mylon  @seattleways "Oh! You mean like ObamaTax'NCare!"
But...in the case of Obama Care, the people have spoken - and they want it! There IS no "newly elected legislature" that will reverse it.
 @Getov Mylon I agree. I think unions are a great idea, but they should always remain voluntary. To be forced to join a union or to opt out, but still have to pay union dues is sickening, especially when the union uses that money to support a political agenda that you don't.
 @GermanAmericanNOTWhiteCaucasian The problem is that by law the union MUST represent ALL employees in the bargaining unit. That means that the union holdout gets exactly the same benefits as the union member, including the representation of a union agent at any disciplinary actions against the non-union employee.
Â
Remove the union-won benefits from the non-union member and then I might go along with RTW.
 @Furd  @GermanAmericanNOTWhiteCaucasian "Remove the union-won benefits from the non-union member and then I might go along with RTW."
Agreed.
Don't want the unions? Don't demand or expect their pay and benefits.
Be ready to work 60 hour weeks - on straight time, at lower pay. Forget vacation and sick leave, Don't like the unions, but work in unsafe conditions? Tough...live with it, or leave.
What this is about is the right to work without having your hard earned money supporting politics you may disagree with and fat cat union bosses living like kings off of the sweat of workers. It is about the basic right to hold a job without being forced into crippling strikes which only harm the strikers who will never recover their lost wages. It is about not being forced to join an organization they may not believe in, and pay a bunch of goons whose only real interest is in continuing to live like royalty, in order to put food on their tables. Freedom is what the right to work is all about.  Â
 @oldster70 "It is about the basic right to hold a job"
Sure it is - until the company has no more use of you, want's to cut your pay and there is no one to stand up and tell them..."NO!".
If you aren't part of the union, are you willing to work more hours at lower wages? Don't need paid sick/vacation leave?
 @oldster70 Spoken like somebody who has never been in a union...
@unobtanium @oldster70 No spoken like some one who has been in a union. Take Hostess I bet the workers never knew that their union bosses lied to them to reject the offer now they are with out a job. Maybe for them right to work is bettter then not working at all.
 @wynooheeman  @unobtanium  @oldster70 As if companies don't do even worse...how are your shares in Enron doing?
Â
Yes, there are bad managements out there - both union AND corporate. But they are the minority, NOT the majority.
But what of the benefits of unions most of us enjoy, even those who have never been members of unions? The 40 hr work week, paid vacations/sick leave. Safer work conditions.
Would you forgo those, just to "punish" a few bad union leaders?
If you find bad leaders, do you destroy the organization, or do you simply go after the bad leaders, remove them and send them to jail? If there are bad government officials, do you destroy the government - or do you vote them out and replaces them?
And do you REALLY think that Hostess would have treated non-union workers any better than the union? No, they would have laid people off - and paid the remaining workers much less than they were paying the union members. So, in either case the only ones benefiting were the upper management - who got bonuses for destroying the company.
 @unobtanium  @oldster70 Riiiight. As we all know everyone has to have done everything in order to understand anything. They don't have the ability to read or comprehend. Personally, my dad was in the ibew. He had so many stories of greed and corruption it was stunning. You can claim all you want but my family saw it all unfold and you will never be able to counter our experience.
 @OrcasThunder  @T_BONE_WALKER  @SeattleJoe i voted also look what happened in longview with the longshoremans union early this year
 @Getov Mylon  @unobtanium "Funny how one of the more popular holdings of Union and Government Pension Funds has been.... Bain Capital."
Funny? And are the pension funds responsible for the horrendous performance of the stock market? Or was it due to the immoral - and likely illegal - manipulations of the traders who gambled on risky "investments" based on fraudulent loans and empty promises?
"When total state government revenues across the nation plummeted by a record-breaking 30.8 percent in 2009, the steep investment losses of pension funds proved to be an even bigger drain on state coffers than recession-battered tax collections, according to census data released Wednesday.
States reported $1.1 trillion in total revenues in 2009, down from $1.6 trillion a year earlier â the steepest drop the United States Census Bureau has reported since it began collecting data on state government finances in 1951.
Tax collections fell by $66 billion, blowing a hole in the operating budgets of many states. But the biggest losses will be felt only in the future: states reported a $477 billion decline in what the census calls âinsurance trust revenue,â mostly from pension funds but also from funds for unemployment insurance and workersâ compensation.
It is hardly a secret that the bursting of the housing bubble and the Great Recession pummeled state finances. But the new census data, for the fiscal year that ended for most states at the end of June 2009, provides the most comprehensive view yet of the decisions states made in the year they saw their revenues fall by record amounts."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/us/06states.html
It wasn't the fault of the retirees that the markets tanked and upper level staff got bonuses for causing it.
Â
Â
 @Getov Mylon  @unobtanium "Government bonds and their meager returns should be a just reward for demanding that business fork over profits to the Union instead of the shareholders."
The "shareholders" of government bonds are the people. How do the unions "force" the government to pay them instead of the people?
As to the big corporations, how about speaking out about the extreme "bonuses" to a few of the top staff, while cutting workers and closing US plants to open new ones off shore? Where are the benefits to the "shareholders"?
 @armor  @T_BONE_WALKER  @SeattleJoe If you are a union member, and was aware of these, did you speak out against them? Did you keep electing the same leaders? Did you turn you back and remain "safe"?
 @T_BONE_WALKER Not a whole lot of telephone work to scab for in MT, especially given what my dad did. There were a couple local telephone coops but my dad disliked them as they were more incompetent than AT&T. He wasn't scabbing. The three union thugs from who knows where showed up to the picket line one day and gave the "toe the line" talk. Then in an apparent "make a point" move or mis-identification suddenly a couple cars of the guys on strike had their windows smashed that day (No one can be sure who did it but it was an interesting coincidence that the day of the threats from the goons this happened). This wasn't a protect the welfare situation this was a do what we tell you situation.
 @unobtanium Government bonds and their meager returns should be a just reward for demanding that business fork over profits to the Union instead of the shareholders.
Â
Funny how one of the more popular holdings of Union and Government Pension Funds has been.... Bain Capital.
Â
Big Business is an anathema to Unions. Until it is not.
 @Getov MylonÂ
unfortunately, other than government bonds where else are they going to go?Â
 @unobtanium  @SeattleJoe Since you bad mouth Wall Street, you might want to look where you Union's Pension is invested. Seems they have a hankering for Big Bad Corporate America.
Â
http://www.nwsheetmetal.aibpa.com/Pension-DB/index.htm
Â
Yeah, tax the corporation?. Tax your Pension. Sounds fair.
 @T_BONE_WALKER  @SeattleJoe what plant are you from back east it happened all the time and still happens i am a teamster 174 and 4 generations of longshoremen and teamsters
 @SeattleJoe Sounds like your dad was scabbing. Union men dont treat each other that way, they protect the welfare of each others family.
 @unobtanium I emphatically don't claim his experience but I also equally emphatically claim the affects it had on our family. Our car windows were broken out by union thugs, threats of violence (oh boy did they pick the wrong person to threaten), oh and the strike fund that was supposed to help pay expenses while on strike, well magically that never developed. But the union boss had his cadillac and fancy rings and big house on the hill. The workers stood in the freezing fricken Montana winter on strike. Yea we had lots of sympathy for the unions and I have no experience with the unions effects at all. Yea right.
 @SeattleJoe Â
His experience is not yours to claim.
Â
Any chicanery in my union has affected me a 100th as much as the financial raping we took as a nation from Wall Street. Â
Â
20+ years Local 66 tinknocker
Some of this area's richest men are contractors that all have one thing in common. They all demand Union labor and waste no time signing successor agreements every time a new agreement is reached.They dont argue, and they dont fight, they sign the damned contract and continue on.
Â
Some of this area's poorest people are non union contractors that will never get it no matter how long they slave.
Â
This area's richest man demanded that his entire software campus in Redmond and his home on Mercer Island be built with Union Labor.
Â
Do you knuckleheads ever stop to wonder why they dont come right out and tell you that? Do you believe you're smarter then they are?
Â
Can any of you explain why as union density has shrank over the last 3 decades, the condition of the country and the families themselves have deteriorated? Keep kicking the working man and someday you're going to get kicked back and Union density will be at all time highs in this country.
Â
If you guys had a brain, you'd support union terms and conditions and use them as leverage to increase your terms and conditions.
 @T_BONE_WALKER "This area's richest man demanded that his entire software campus in Redmond and his home on Mercer Island be built with Union Labor."
And yet has he allowed a union to form among his employees?
 @T_BONE_WALKER Say.. this "richest man" of whom you speak, can you tell us all which Union his tens of thousands of employees here in Washington State are members of?Â
Â
I can wait...
 @Getov MylonÂ
Quite a few are members of the American Bar Association...
@T_BONE_WALKER Sorry No don't buy that crap for one second. I have friends who are union I have been a member of a union know what we do when work out of the hall is slow we go to work non union and make the same amount if not more and no working dues to pay aka the mob fund.
 @wynooheeman  @T_BONE_WALKER "and make the same amount if not more and no working dues to pay aka the mob fund."
So...you admit that you scab off of the efforts of the union members...
 @wynooheeman Hows that working for your benefits? You're letting the employer off the hook but if you and your friends are out of work that often, maybe your not cut out for what you're trying to do. At least you and your buddies know what you're worth. Good Hands always work or they are lost to the union competition.
Â
Three questions: Why are many of the area's richest men Union contractors and why are non union contractors some of the poorest? Why do you suppose those rich men wont tell the poor men?
Â
 @wynooheemanÂ
If your grammar is any indication, Â you are the type who would benefit the most from a union yet fight it the hardest.
@Getov Mylon Only one.
 @unobtanium  @wynooheeman  You missed one or two commas yourself.
 @T_BONE_WALKER Tell that to the Hostess workers who were union,but lost their jobs because of union thugs.Tell that to steel workers who had their jobs outsourced because of Democrats and their regulations and union demands,that bankrupted the companies. point is Unions constantly bite the hands that feed them .
 @Maynard G Krebbs Â
...on second thought Forbes is too much reading for the right wing, try this instead:
Â
http://assets.amuniversal.com/ed5a84b0207d0130028e001dd8b71c47?width=900.0
Â
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs Yet I listed this, and as item number 1. So your point is...?
 @OrcasThunder  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Right above the list I gave I wrote "Did Hostess make mistakes yes they did.". Was that unclear? Most of the items in the list didn't even involve unions. I'm not saying that only the union members were at fault otherwise I wouldn't give a list that was mostly non union issues. If I type too fast for you let me know and I'll slow down.
 @OrcasThunder  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs Riiight. Reagan compromised with the democrats, they doublecrossed him so he said never again. During Bush the Democrats fought everything he did. Not much compromise there. Obama told the republicans they can come along for the ride but they have to sit in the back seat. So you say the republicans need to learn something. Wow. Thats the worst case of pot meet kettle I've ever seen.
 @SeattleJoe  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs "6. There developed such an animosity between the unions and the company that no one would budge and without compromise they died."
A lesson the GOP/TP needs to learn.
 @SeattleJoe  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs
"3. Products were wrong for new more "health conscience" buyers."
And who's fault was that - the union members? These were management decisions - and yet you accept that only the union workers should be blamed and punished?
 @SeattleJoe  @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs "1. Paid executives too much. But when summed up it wouldn't have made much difference since their total pay was too small compared to the debt."
And yet they made no effort to control THOSE problems, did they? They even gave these overpaid officers bonuses for driving the company into the swamp.
 @T_BONE_WALKER "Every one of those pension trusts were subjected to the corruption of the US financial sector".
You will need to provide specific evidence of this gross generalization.
Â
@SeattleJoe
Every one of those pension trusts were subjected to the corruption of the US financial sector and that's what put them there. The strongest pension fund in the world is a multi employer pension trust.
Â
Hows those 401s in contrast? In addition, what of the employer's right to implement a last, best and, final but chose not too? Union's fault still?
Â
Why are some of the area's richest men Union contractors? Why are some of the area's poorest men non union contractors?
 @T_BONE_WALKER I didn't mean to imply that all of them are having issues but many are. As for what is better, thats a crap shoot in this economy. But to help with the MEPPs in trouble here's a link:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusnotices.html#.UMGeoI5vIQQ
 @SeattleJoe The company at anytime over the last 40 years could have lawfully implemented a last best and final offer made up of whatever the company wanted and never did so. That leaves management owning the whole problem, no ifs, ands or, buts.
Â
With regard to #4, Some of the most secure pension trusts in the world are multi employer pension trusts and I'd like for you to show me where they are anywhere near as financially troublesome or corrupt as the US financial sector is. Is that who you depend on? Please provide me with some examples of a safer pension fund. I'll be waiting.
 @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs If you are going to post links how about something from the other side, and I might add a little more concrete:  http://www.thestrengthofamerica.com/2012/11/22/what-really-happened-to-hostess/
Did Hostess make mistakes yes they did.
1. Paid executives too much. But when summed up it wouldn't have made much difference since their total pay was too small compared to the debt.
2. Their second bankruptcy only set the stage for the third, and was partly owned by a union at that point.Â
3. Products were wrong for new more "health conscience" buyers.
4. They joined a multiple employer pension plan, which are notoriously financially troublesome.Â
5. They let the unions have their way too often. When they wanted to pull out of unprofitable markets the unions were able to delay or prevent it and thus the company hemorrhaged money substantially.Â
6. There developed such an animosity between the unions and the company that no one would budge and without compromise they died.
 @SeattleJoe Â
Â
I kept it simple for Maynard; pictures, little text - so no confusion
 @unobtanium  @Maynard G Krebbs This piece of scholarly work is what you use to make a point?
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @T_BONE_WALKER Still believing the Hostess union -bad fairy tale, eh?
Â
http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/11/16/who-killed-hostess-brands-and-twinkies/