-
jeff 03/07/2010 10:58:00 PM
Funny how no mention was made of the devastating effects this BS pollock fisheries is having on the Yukon River salmon fisheries. These giant trawlers sweep up everything in the water over a certain size. If it's not pollock they have to throw it back in the sea. And most, if not all by-catch dies and goes to waste. Each year there are less and less salmon in the Yukon River. They are ruining our way of life on the Yukon River. Since we have treaties with Canada that says so many salmon have to reach Canadian spawning grounds the state fisheries board has to shut down some part of fishing in Alaska on Yukon River. And between powerful commercial fishers in the lower Yukon River with some political might and the individual subsistence fishers on the middle Yukon River with no political pull, who do you suppose gets screwed? So while Trident makes a billion, we can hardly put fresh fish on our tables. I don't mind a big corpoation making money, but not at the expense of many. At least change the laws to allow the trawlers to freeze and sell us the salmon. Who the hell wants pollock. Bring back ZPG now!! Fed up(but not with salmon) in Alaska.
-
fish stick nick 11/25/2008 5:28:00 AM
I dont understand how a "one five minute in-person conversation" can turn into a sleazy bash the fish stick dude 4 page article. You made it clear you truly do not know him or his company. Note, start a business, grow a business, employ thousands, pay taxes and then get trashed by some chick at seattle weekly?? thats my "american dream" to be more honest I found the cheap sex ads in the back of your paper more interesting. credibility?? I think not.
-
Ed 11/24/2008 11:40:00 PM
Bill Woods, quoted in this article as a "current employee of Trident" has not worked at Trident Seafoods for several years now. This is one of several inaccuracies that would be apparent to someone with enough industry knowledge to recognize them.
-
Victor Smith 11/24/2008 10:43:00 PM
Laura-
Checking to see if you got my previous email on your Fish Stick-up story. Victor
-
Guest 11/24/2008 3:39:00 AM
You obviously don't get it - of course it allowable for a company to lobby a politician. But it isn't allowable to improperly influence a politician. Trevor McCabe, he of At Sea Processors - the lobbying group cited in this article, the former staff member of Ted Stevens, the owner of land with Don Young's son-in-law (and Don Young who sponsored the Bridges to Nowhere) in seeking to benefit from that earmark, who engineered the American Fisheries Act that Bundrant uniquely benefited from, the same Trevor McCabe being investigated for his co-ownership of Advance North LLc with Ben Stevens (son of U.S. Senator Stevens) for lobbying the fishing industry, the same Trevor McCabe who engineered an earmark for the Seward SeaLife Center with Ted Stevens for the purchase of real estate that McCabe owned with other business partners, that is who Chuck Bundrant has done business with in using politicians to corrupt the fishing industry to benefit himself and his company. That is an AWFUL lot of shady deals, you roll around with the pigs and you get dirty. As for attending the funeral of employees who died, well, I'll tell you a dirty little secret -- insurance companies actually advise them to do that as it helps reduce the chances that the bereaved will file a claim against the company. I'll bet you hadn't thought of that now, did you?
-
Jean Cherberg 11/23/2008 10:58:00 PM
Laura
I worked for Trident Seafoods in the accounting department from 1981-1989. By far, it was the best company I ever worked for.(I left to start a real estate career). I witnessed many times over Chuck's generosity and compassion when an employee, whether top management or a processor experienced serious illness or death in their family (I handeled payroll and employee benefits). I can remember a tragic loss of one employee at sea. Chuck attended his funeral, how many CEOs would do that today? Chuck always made it a point that the fishermen were the life blood of our business. It was our job to serve them. Chuck made his company from the ground up and with the help of a good team. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was a farm kid from Tennessee. He never forgot where he came from either. He made sure to bring in hard working employees from back home. I remain in contact with some old friends at Trident and I can assure you that there are many I worked along side who are still there, and many that have retired. That says alot for a company in this day and age, where there is high turnover or the lay off as one reaches retirement age. You mention his political ties, what company does not make contacts with politicians? At least he's keeping the jobs here! Yes Chuck will succeed no matter who is in office. White hairs and a back problem, I can assure you he earned everyone of them worrying about the fleet. Oh and your snide remark about his back, I suggest you go work on a crabber in the Bering Sea and pull crab pots for a few years and see the toll it takes on your body. The reason Chuck avoided your request for an interview several times is simple: He is not a braggart, never has been, never will be. I think you owe him an apology.
-
Eric NotMyTribe 11/22/2008 11:06:00 AM
Chuck Bundrant helps deplete the crab fishery, then goes after Pollock only because it's one of the few resources left.
Pollock is a tasteless "trash fish" that transformed America's food supply for the worse. Fish sticks, fast-food fillets. We have this kind of man to thank for putting the "garbage" in junk food.
And it turns out he's a crook as well. I look forward to reading of his indictment. Great article.
-
Guest 11/22/2008 8:42:00 AM
Ortey - everybody you know in Seattle knows of Trident and/or Bundrant? Well, then, you must be employed in the fishing industry. For, as you so clearly pointed out, the majority of the product that Trident sells in a commodity, and you know what the definition of a commodity is, right? Of course, Red Hook and Jones Soda are well known BECAUSE THEY AREN'T COMMODITIES, but I forgot, you are a marketing genius you knew that already. But do all the tech workers at Amazon, Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Boeing, and other companies with no ties to the fishing industry (and its suppliers) know what Trident trades in? Who runs Trident? Who Trident runs? I don't think so, in the new Seattle economy most people are unaware of players like Bundrant and how they corrupt the law making process in their favor
-
Crabbybob 11/22/2008 7:47:00 AM
This is undoubtedly the worst article ever written by the Weekly completely biased against a man who should be appreciatted for his contribution to our industry. He and his entire family are dedicated to creating a stable company that will endure for generations, I have heard them say MANY times that their goal is to take care of their fishermen, employee's and customers and everything else will take care of itself.
Secondly as a Pollock (and crab) fisherman I am offended that you would call pollock a trash fish! Have you ever eaten it you crazy _ _ _ _ H ?
-
Guest 11/22/2008 5:59:00 AM
I thought people who lived in Seattle were supposed to be very smart since so many have gone to college and even earned advanced degrees. But I guess you aren't, it's so much easier to just read a short article rather than inform yourself. Remember the Bridge to Nowhere? There are actually two, one of which is in Anchorage. And who are the owners of a SIZABLE tract of land near this bridge? Trevor McCabe, former staffer of Ted Stevens and the lobbyist who was architect of the AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT (which how Bundrant got his quota). Who else owns shares in that land? DON YOUNG's (the sole Alaska Congressman) SON-IN-LAW, and an owner of some factory trawlers. So I guess what the previous commenters are saying is that there was no reason for the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, that those robber barons behind the railroads (who, after all, were just good businessmen that paid off the politicians to grant them special privileges and favors) don't believe in the free market capitalism that is the foundation of the U.S. This was a very well researched story and doesn't even begin to touch upon the corruption in the Alaskan fishing industry.
-
entropy 11/22/2008 12:50:00 AM
It's ironic that Chuck's big idea was at sea processing of crab, then he gets Stevens to buy out at sea processors of pollock and then he buys out Tyson and ends up with more at sea processing.
Is At Sea processing good? Looks like it depends on if Chuck owns it or not.
Chuck now controls more of the pollock fishery than the American Sefoods folks who supposedly controlled to much necessitating AFA. Of course this is "hidden" in shell corps in his sons name.
AFA was accomplished via an appropriation rider that was kept secret from most of the AK fishing industry. Another irony is that Bundrant, through AFA, slammed the door on "Bundrants of the future".
Rags to Riches? More like government enforced monopoly.
-
Red Rocket 11/22/2008 12:32:00 AM
Way to go Chuck!
We need more men like you in business. Chuck is the kind of businessman that makes the world turn. Also If Trident was not allocated a sizable quota share, the fish would have been allocated to the Foreign Owned Fish Processing Companies. Trident is the Only major Amerian Fish Processor in Alaska. The foreign fish companies should have no right to, or, control of, our natural resources. Keep fishin hard Chuck!
-
Jerry Swanson 11/21/2008 10:51:00 AM
The trawlers are taking a terrible toll on the salmon species and any and all species in the eco system. Alaska legislators need to stick up for Alaskans and all of the people along the salmon fishing tributaries. Figures are available to back up the excessive bycatch and it's rediculous what they are getting away with.
-
TJD 11/21/2008 5:46:00 AM
Pretty funny laura...You should ask the fishermen of Sand Point, Bristol Bay, and Kodiak how they like Trident....every time a cash buyer would show up in town, with a competitive price...trident would top their prices...and when the cash buyer's left town...Trident would drop the price of the fish again...and any body that sold to the competitors, were disbarred from Trident...That hurt alot of guys...and they ended up owing money to the company store(Big co.s slept in bed with each other)) in the following years.They fished their big Bering Sea boats in waters, where the little fishermen were. Councils failed to stop this. Trident also had control of some of their town's fuel and water rights,as well...Borough officials became Pro-Trident because they wanted to keep up the infrastructure thru taxes, it was all they could do...Fishing was the only thing to do out there, to survive, and profit from...If you needed gear or needed a loan for a boat, Trident was there...but you damn well, only, better deliver to Trident....Fishermen grew a dependence on Trident and other power houses...you had to tell your crew to go fishing for a small price, or lose your boat and life to Trident...They could break a strike with c/p's fishing...Trident leveraged the prices for a long long time...gained total control of the industry via Last minute earmarks by TED STEVENS and YOUNG....They privatized the industry for their own gain...If you worked on their boats, you did good...but if you were on an independent, free enterprising boat, the deck was stacked against you...The free market for pollock and cod started diminishing right after the trawlers were taken off the olympic style, derby fish race...crab, the same thing....Chuck didn't discover Pollock fishing, he copied the asians, who have NO respect for replenishing the oceans...It's who you know and who you bl__w...with Alaskan Politicians! Chuck had a good lip service...He and six other major canneries settled out of court, with Exxon, right after the spill, for 70 million dollars!...I watched my salmon price go from 2.55 lb. to .45 lb. in the course of one year....they have been protected by Alaska's Politicians for almost 4 decades...The fishermen(small guys) have still not been paid by Exxon....The Bush Appointed Supreme Court voted for Big Business in Alaska....This should go back TO CONGRESS AND GET REVERSED......9th circuit judge has ties to, back east law universties that have recieved donations from exxon, for seminars for young enterprising, and returning lawyers. He is the judge that reduced the 5 Billion $ award to 32,000 ak. fishermen...then went to supreme court...I say blow these crooks and these crooked businessmen out of the water...He was nothing great...he just took the right people out to lunch...
-
Tor 11/20/2008 10:49:00 PM
�Trash Fish�, this conjures up images of a little fishy mobile-home with old dilapidated cars in the driveway, discarded tires on the lawn surrounded by empty cans of Bud, and a ratty couch on the porch with an ash tray overflowing with cigarette butts on the arm rest. I mean really, why wouldn�t you fish for �trash fish� everyone knows they are the easiest to catch because of their uncontrollable attraction to fish net. All kidding aside:
�Bundrant propelled his company to the top of the food chain by recognizing the unexploited potential of groundfish�fish that live near the bottom of the ocean�
I assume this is your definition of what makes up a �Trash Fish� because I see no other definition or points of reference in your article. The actual definition of Trash Fish is �A term for fish that fishermen generally throw away because there's little or no commercial value.� It has nothing to do with where they live in relation to the surface of the water. At one time both the lobster and Monk fish where considered trash fish but have changed because of consumer demand. But with your definition (groundfish = trash fish) then we should consider; sole, flounder, halibut, ling cod, haddock, bass, grouper, snapper, cat fish, eel, and some species of shark to be trash fish?
Because the real definition is not yours and Chuck recognized the unexploited potential, worked hard and took chances to change that, then he would be a visionary wouldn�t he? Isn�t it that kind of vision and resolve that leads to real success in any endeavor? It seems to me there are lessons to be learned from Chuck�s story that for some reason couldn�t make their way to this article. Instead all I read is negative in tone, implications without good facts and references and the occasional backhanded compliment.
�Saleswise, Trident is more than 20 times the size of local companies like Jones Soda or Redhook, and yet it remains relatively unknown in its hometown.�
Every person I know in Seattle knows of Trident or at least someone who has worked for them at one time. There is something to be said for that considering their retail products make up a VERY small percentage of their total sales. Can the same be said for Jones and Redhook? If Jones and Redhook where served in bottles without labels and only in restaurants with menu items only stating Soda and Beer would you even know their brand let alone where that company was located? You are comparing apples to shoes on this one Laura.
�In October 1978, a dozen members of his processing crew went on strike, demanding a raise from $3.45 to $6 an hour, according to records from the National Labor Relations Board. Bundrant offered $4.�
For a dozen people in a large processing plant to go on strike and demand a raise of that size leads me to believe there was something else going on. What where all the other processors doing, crossing the picket line? Why would they do that? How many employees worked at that facility at the time? I think a little more fact finding would have been appropriate here before writing about this situation. Do you have any data to show they where that grossly underpaid? Apparently only 12 of them thought so at the time.
Adjusting for inflation $3.45 an hour�s in 1978 is the equivalent of $11.46 an hours today. $6.00 an hour in 1978 is equal to $19.93 an hour today. If you made $11.46 an hour ($22,000 a year) today and demanded a raise to $19.93 (38,265 a year) to continue doing the same job what would your boss say? Mine would laugh me out of her office. In fact I just couldn�t bring myself to do ask. Do you really think even a strong union could get that kind of increase for people performing the exact same job responsibilities?
When I first read this article I thought it was a fine example of someone just trying to knock successful people down a peg because of their own jealousy and thought that maybe instead of writing negatively about other people�s success she could go out and find some success of her own. But then I looked up her resume online ( www.lauraonstot.net/files/Resume3.doc ) and realized she is just very green. I suspect she was upset that Chuck would not give her the interview time she thought she disserved giving her writing the cross tone that comes across in this article.
I hope with a few more years under her belt Laura might start to grasp the reality of how business and government work and she will not feel the need to write articles with such sensationalism about next to nothing. After all she is still is a student studying economic and political reporting.
I better get back to work so I can justify asking for an 80% raise next year.
Ortey
-
Jon Williams 11/20/2008 9:44:00 AM
Sounds like Chuck wouldn't do an interview so he got slammed for it . You even berated the guy for not looking like a cartoon what does his looks have to do with the kind of businessman he is. Sounds like he made some good decisions and got some legislation passed that was good for US fisherman he just benefited more because he had built a bigger organization. His political contributions according to your article where hardly worth mentioning. Sounds like you got up on the wrong side of the bed the day you wrote this.
-
TD 11/20/2008 8:28:00 AM
I must admit that I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is a "News" Story about a Rags to Riches Visionary who changed the face of the American Commercial Fishing Industry for the better or an Editorial Opinion Piece written to malign a Man and his Company for simply being good at what they do.
If you weed out all of the salacious innuendo, the article paints a picture of a driven individual who through a great deal of hard work and good luck went from a one boat operation to the largest American Owned Seafood Company, I make the distinction American Owned because so many aren't.
The article would have us believe that Chuck Bundrant single handedly forced legislation through strong arm tactics and payola that benefited only his company... I should point out however that when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was being talked about Mr. Bundrant was a little fish with many larger competitors, and while I will concede that Trident did benefit from the new 200 mile EEZ, so did every fisherman in America since the Act covered all of our coastal waters. Kicking the Foreign Distant Water Fleets out of our fishing grounds benefited all of us, you, me, the coastal communities that depend on that resource for the local economies... Jobs, Taxes, Support business', etc. when the foreign fleets would scoop up our natural resources they not only took the fish and the profits, but they took the jobs and all the rest with it so please spare me the insinuation that Chuck Bundrant was only looking out for himself when he (along with many, many others) worked to expand our Exclusive Economic Zone.
That brings me to the next bit of this article that left a bad taste in my mouth... the conspiratorial overtones of Chuck Bundrant's political contributions?! I think it's shameful that you had to stack Chuck, his Wife, and his son in a pile and go all the way back to 1993 to come up with a grand total that looked sufficiently evil... if you do the math, that's about $555.00 a year in Political Contributions to Don Young... yup, better slap the cuffs on all of them!
Honestly, it's clear to me that the author of this article had it written before talking to anyone in the Fishing Industry, but if you can get past all of her muckraking, you do get to see a portrait of a guy who had a good idea, gathered a great team, and got to be arguably the Top Dog in the industry, and if he wants to retire and finally enjoy the fruits of his labor and turn the day to day stuff over to the team he's built, all I can say is "Good for him"
-
Miller 11/20/2008 7:11:00 AM
I was with one of the smaller companies Trident purchased and fully involved in the companies integration into Trident.
1st- Trident fully absorbed the the entire staff, there were no lay-offs.
2nd- Within the following month the company was purchased, Trident fully rolled our personnel into their medical benefits program. This gave much better coverage to all our covered employees and $420/month savings to those workers with family coverage, this was directed by Chuck Bundrant himself.
3rd- The plants and vessels we supported now had capital to improve operations and living conditions, as well as greater market to sell our product to.
Chuck Bundrant comes from captaining vessels, he expects his crew to work hard, but he makes sure to take good care of them.
-
MC 11/20/2008 12:42:00 AM
So, let me get this straight. Because Chuck had the foresight to see the need for on the water processing and followed it through which happened to be a genius idea you think that is a bad thing? Wow I guess how dare Thomas Edison bring light to the world, how dare him try to make things more convenient. Oh and don't even get me started on that Alexander Graham Bell fellow, think of how many messengers that guy put out of business by creating and implementing the use of the Telephone. Give me a break, and not to mention a persons donations to a political cause does not line pockets for great things, a measly 4,000 Dollar donation? What is that going to buy in today's market, a used 95 escort and seats to the Mariners for a day? Would you sell your soul for 4k?
