After months of negotiations, employees of the Hostess plant in Biddeford are in a tough spot. The fate of the Biddeford factory is effectively in their hands: Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn has said, in his letter published on this page today, that the company will close if they strike and there will be “no returning to the bargaining table.”

Their other option is to accept a collective bargaining agreement that they have deemed unacceptable.

The employees in question here are those who belong to the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union Local 334.

Last month, members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the union representing the largest number of Hostess employees nationwide, voted to accept a collective bargaining contract with the company, but more than 90 percent of the locals with the BCTGM did not.

The 8 percent wage reduction the company is currently asking for, in addition to other concessions, would be equivalent to an approximately 40 percent loss in pay and benefits, local union representatives said.

Hostess followed the union’s rejection of their offer with a motion to legally impose that contract on the BCTGM workers, and the court sided with the company last Wednesday.

The BCTGM workers are 325 of the more than 400 workers at the Biddeford plant, and nationally, the union widely rejected the most recent contract proposal from the company. Being forced into a plan they have already rejected has left the local union members unhappy, but now it becomes a question of whether or not they’re willing to live with the new concessions in order to keep Biddeford’s biggest employer from shuttering its doors.

Hostess Brands has been in and out of bankruptcy for years now, from 2004-09 and now with its most recent filing of Chapter 11 in January. In its efforts to re-emerge into solvency, the company has had to take some drastic steps over the years. Wage cuts have been prevalent, and this new agreement proposes them not only for union workers but for management as well.

Let’s not forget, in these times when many people would be happy to have a job at all, the jobs at Hostess include health benefits and retirement plans, good wages and union protections. The average worker at the Biddeford plant makes $20 per hour, with part of that going toward a retirement plan.

Jordan has said the workers don’t want to appear ungrateful and are more than willing to “do their part” to keep the company solvent ”“ and it looks like they have certainly walked that walk in the past, taking wage cuts and forgoing raises. It hasn’t been easy for them, and at the heart of this dispute is the union employees’ belief that the company has failed to fund their pensions despite paycheck deductions for that purpose. Trust has been breached here, with employees feeling as though the company has stolen from them, and that makes it hard to negotiate.

Rayburn has noted, however, and we agree, that “a strike would not correct past injustices.” The issue of the unfunded pension contributions needs to be addressed by the company, but it’s less likely to be addressed if the plant is shut down.

If the workers can continue to slog through these difficult times, they can pursue getting their pension contributions back, and they could see other rewards in the long run. Rayburn has said that the solvency plan includes selling 25 percent of the company to its employees, and he’s noted that sales of Hostess products have remained strong throughout the years of bankruptcy struggles. People want the sweet, packaged treats and breads the plant produces, but costs have to be cut to keep the company solvent enough to keep pumping out those Suzy Qs.

It’s no easy charge to balance workers’ rights and giving company leaders enough leeway to keep the place running at a profit, but in the end there are no workers if there is no company. In order to spare Biddeford a massive hit of job losses, we’d like to see local Hostess employees make a compromise once again, with a view toward a healthier future when they can again advocate for themselves.

When a judge finds that the bargaining agreement should be imposed, and other unions have given it the OK, it’s time to accept it and move on. Those who have serious disagreements with the decision can look for other jobs, but they shouldn’t force all of their co-workers to do the same by making a stand that will end in closure of the plant.