After the first news struck the US media like a shock, the
follow-up has been quiet and predictable. Hostess Brands, the maker of such
classic snacks as Twinkies and Ho Hos (thanks to a European upbringing I have
no idea what I am writing about), has been given permission to enter bankruptcy
proceedings and liquidate its assets by the oddly appropriately named
Judge Drain. That means job losses of 18,500 jobs and a search for buyers for its
30 or so brands and many production plants, distribution centers, and other assets.
The opportunistic hoarding and eBay selling of Hostess snack
foods has subsided as people seem to be getting the idea that some
other maker will likely take them over and continue making them. Yes, you can
bid on eBay for a $200 box of Twinkies or a $50 box of Ho Hos (are Twinkies so much
better?), but nobody is doing it. In fact, the bids are on boxes below $5.
There is a support group for Twinkies on Facebook, but I am having difficulty determining
whether it is a spoof.
Except for the true addict, the more interesting issue is
how a maker of goods that seem to ignite so much passion could fail so quickly.
The story is complicated and involves a botched Chapter 11 restructuring that
left the firm with more debt than before (they are supposed to do the
opposite), as well as two unions with opposite ideas of whether the firm could
survive a strike. The Teamsters, who thought it could not, were right; the
bakers' union, who called for a strike, were wrong. But the really interesting
part is that a very contentious issue in the labor negotiations between the
management and the unions was an increase in the employee-paid part of the
healthcare cost and restrictions on pension payouts. Together, these reduced the benefits employees would get from Hostess.
Such changes are actually occurring in many Fortune 500
companies, according to research by Forrest Briscoe and Chad Murphy in
Administrative Science Quarterly. Such cuts were originally made quite publicly
after some firms discovered that their pension and benefit liabilities were
large, and sought to reduce them as a cost-cutting measure. However, negative
media coverage resulted, leading to reputational consequences, pressure from
interest groups, and labor unrest like what Hostess experienced. As a result of
these reactions, the diffusion of transparent cuts quickly slowed down. Instead
of public and transparent cuts, firms started implementing more obscure
spending caps that had the same effects on their costs, but were much harder
for employees and media to understand and react to. These spread rapidly, in
part as a result of a few consulting firms advising their clients how to
implement these obscure benefit-cutting practices.
The result was diffusion by stealth. This is so clearly the
opposite of regular diffusion processes, where more information leads to faster
spread. The reason for the reversal is obvious. The managers in charge of these
changes were fully aware that they were adopting unpopular, reviled practices,
and would rather go under the radar than let it the consequences of their
decisions become known. Which raises the question: do you know if your pension
or benefits has been cut recently? If you work for a major corporation, the
chances that it has happened are not so small that they can be overlooked.