Hostess closing

[stevew]

Unsure what this means for the Twinkee. With weed legalized in a couple states, this is odd timing. This strike must have been really bad?

[MacroGuru]

It's official...Zombieland will begin soon....

[spleen1015]

Someone will buy them, like Pepsi Co. or someone else.

[BYU 14]

just when the fight for Cannibis is won in a couple of states this happens. Not even worth it to smoke now :p

[EagleFan]

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kudos striking workers you really showed them.

[Kodos]

Way to stick it to the man!

[Blackadar]

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Kudos striking workers you really showed them.

Grow up.

The workers gave major concessions a few years ago in the first bankruptcy. The Hostess hedge fund managers (the ones who took it over after the last bankruptcy) took large bonuses out of the company while asking the rank-and-file to take more large pay cuts (8% wages, 30% benefits) to the point the employees would make the same as working at places like Target and McDonald's. Furthermore, the company had stopped contributing to their pension benefits last year and didn't want to pay those either.

So the union - who knows many of these properties will be picked up by someone else after a liquidation - essentially said "fuck you" and I don't blame them. At some point you will cut off your nose to spite your face when the other side is trying to rub it in shit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

the employees would make the same as working at places like Target and McDonald's.

And now they have nothing to hold them back from competing with each other for those jobs.

[Blackadar]

And now they have nothing to hold them back from competing with each other for those jobs.

The union didn't push the nuclear button because it was just the fun thing to do. They did it because they were pushed into a corner, all the while the fund managers were openly sticking it to them. At some point, people get pretty tired of having their faces rubbed in shit and fight back. This was, in essence, a big "fuck you" to management - and from what I understand, the management deserved it big time. The door swings both ways.

When whoever buys the Hostess assets decides to reopen some of those plants, at least some of the employees will get their jobs back, likely at better wages. In the meanwhile, some people will get better jobs, some will get worse jobs, some will get equal jobs and some won't get any jobs at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When whoever buys the Hostess assets decides to reopen some of those plants, at least some of the employees will get their jobs back, likely at better wages.

Only if the new owners are really really stupid.

[Grover]

just when the fight for Cannibis is won in a couple of states this happens. Not even worth it to smoke now :p

Funny, as what some people would consider a "pot head" I haven't had a Hostess or Little Debbie snack since I was probably 12 or 13.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Funny, as what some people would consider a "pot head" I haven't had a Hostess or Little Debbie snack since I was probably 12 or 13.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Nacho-Cheese-Doritos-Bag-Small.jpg/200px-Nacho-Cheese-Doritos-Bag-Small.jpg

[Desnudo]

Pretty sure of what this means for AMERICA

http://www.theartofmovieposters.com/pages/gallery/POITIER/1988_LittleNikita.jpg

[Grover]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Nacho-Cheese-Doritos-Bag-Small.jpg/200px-Nacho-Cheese-Doritos-Bag-Small.jpg

Touché. I'm more of a pastries guy though.

Doughnuts are my ultimate weakness in general.

[Buccaneer]

With a lot of people out of work and many of those with jobs have had to endure pay cuts, no raises and less benefits for more money (including me), I really think they should've been grateful that they had a relatively steady job. Management will do what they have always done (as in my company, which I chose not to become one) and if I demand more, I will likely be out of a job myself in my tenuous industry.

[JPhillips]

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

[Blackadar]

With a lot of people out of work and many of those with jobs have had to endure pay cuts, no raises and less benefits for more money (including me), I really think they should've been grateful that they had a relatively steady job. Management will do what they have always done (as in my company, which I chose not to become one) and if I demand more, I will likely be out of a job myself in my tenuous industry.

Please, sir, may I have some more gruel?

[DaddyTorgo]

With a lot of people out of work and many of those with jobs have had to endure pay cuts, no raises and less benefits for more money (including me), I really think they should've been grateful that they had a relatively steady job. Management will do what they have always done (as in my company, which I chose not to become one) and if I demand more, I will likely be out of a job myself in my tenuous industry.

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

What he said. The union obviously sat down and said " The management is enriching themselves and asking us to take pay cuts and benefit cuts, rather than reinvesting in the company? We didn't sign up for that. We see where this is going, and this is our line in the sand."

Please, sir, may I have some more gruel?

YOU'LL BE LUCKY IF YOU GET GRUEL SERF!!! GET BACK IN THE MINES!!!

[BYU 14]

Funny, as what some people would consider a "pot head" I haven't had a Hostess or Little Debbie snack since I was probably 12 or 13.

And that age range is the only experience I have to draw on, LOL. A typical night for me as a teenager after blazing was a trip to to 7-11. 2-3 packs of vanilla zingers, some nachos or one of those nasty footlong frozen burritos and my 1 am meal was set...

[Warhammer]

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

Its supply and demand. You run this risk if you have a skill set that is easily replaced.

This would have sounded crazy 20 years ago, but I may encourage my kids to pursue a blue collar job. The average age for a welder in this country is 55 years old (may be higher now). The kids coming up currently are crap. If you know how to work your ass off, you'll find work in this area. I have contractors that are costing themselves money on project work for the sole purpose of keeping their top welders busy. They can't afford to lose them.

If you have an assembly line job, is that skilled labor? You're easily replaced, especially in a job market like today's where there are plenty of unemployed people.

So, if you have skills that a lot of other people have, you're screwed in this economy. If you have skills that few others have, you're fine.

[BishopMVP]

What he said. The union obviously sat down and said " The management is enriching themselves and asking us to take pay cuts and benefit cuts, rather than reinvesting in the company? We didn't sign up for that. We see where this is going, and this is our line in the sand."I'd think it should be up to the individual workers - if you think this job at X pay is unacceptable, go find a new one. There's undoubtedly some percentage of the workers that didn't want to or can't find a new job, and now they (or, perhaps, the people who pay into food stamps and unemployment insurance) have no recourse.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'd think it should be up to the individual workers - if you think this job at X pay is unacceptable, go find a new one. There's undoubtedly some percentage of the workers that didn't want to or can't find a new job, and now they (or, perhaps, the people who pay into food stamps and unemployment insurance) have no recourse.

That's one of the explicit tradeoffs of unionized work though. In exchange you get (theoretically) better working conditions, an advocate for benefits, etc.

[MacroGuru]

Its supply and demand. You run this risk if you have a skill set that is easily replaced.

This would have sounded crazy 20 years ago, but I may encourage my kids to pursue a blue collar job. The average age for a welder in this country is 55 years old (may be higher now). The kids coming up currently are crap. If you know how to work your ass off, you'll find work in this area. I have contractors that are costing themselves money on project work for the sole purpose of keeping their top welders busy. They can't afford to lose them.

If you have an assembly line job, is that skilled labor? You're easily replaced, especially in a job market like today's where there are plenty of unemployed people.

So, if you have skills that a lot of other people have, you're screwed in this economy. If you have skills that few others have, you're fine.

Watched CBS Sunday Morning the other day and they were talking about how there are 3 million unfilled job openings out there that are construed as "skilled" labor jobs (Machinists, QA Engineers and so forth) within the manufacturing industry and that the number will sky rocket in the next few years as the boomers start to retire.

To me even at 38 and able to do a mixture of things screams to me to tell my kids to focus there, they were talking that some of the positions will pay between 60 and 100K for 2 to 3 years worth of experience right now....So you have to suffer through your first year with low pay but then become a commodity...sounds good to me...

[molson]

What he said. The union obviously sat down and said " The management is enriching themselves and asking us to take pay cuts and benefit cuts, rather than reinvesting in the company? We didn't sign up for that. We see where this is going, and this is our line in the sand."


Hostess is a tired brand and they've already been through bankruptcy, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they've had legit financial issues as opposed to maybe just trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of workers to buy another golden rocket car. I'm guessing it's not fun to be Hostess management these days.

[CrimsonFox]

Hostess shut down: Twinkie maker to go out of business - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-hostess-brands-seeks-court-permission-to-liquidate-20121116,0,3175964.story)

I don't understand this. Since Washington and Colorado legalized pot, you'd think they'd be preparing for the biggest business boon in their history.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

What ever happened to the good old days when the way companies dealt with strikers was to hire some goons to beat them to a bloody pulp and kill a few? Fucking liberal pansies...

On a positive note, I'm gonna buy a truck load of Twinkies. I won't eat them. I'll resell them when the market demand causes them to be worth more than plutonium.

[Abe Sargent]

This really pisses me off, by the way, because I walk to a local Hostess outlet for all o fmy bread and such, and no where else is in walking distance for bread. So I'm going to have to take a bus to get bread from now on - sucks.

[CrimsonFox]

This really pisses me off, by the way, because I walk to a local Hostess outlet for all o fmy bread and such, and no where else is in walking distance for bread. So I'm going to have to take a bus to get bread from now on - sucks.


I'm sure a panera's will sprout up in its place.

[Buccaneer]

Hostess, with their grossly unhealthy product lines, was not going to be around much longer anyways. I have always worked in non-unionized profession based on meritocracy, so feudalism is irrelevant and out of line (and really childish). Many in my profession have been laid off and are looking for work (including my stepson); plus my industry faces some challenging times ahead. So yes, I am thankful for what I have and I am not envious of management (I wouldn't want to do they do anyways). I rather keep working until I can retire and not going to personally do anything to jeopardize that and let outside forces take care of themselves (which could eventually lead to being shutdown as well).

[panerd]

Yeah I have to agree with Bucc here. I certainly empathize with the plight of the workers and feel like the management is in the wrong but this one was pretty clear where it was headed. And to lose your job because you don't agree with "the way the world works" in this economy seems like you were given really bad advice. At least teachers/firefighters/auto workers have a product/service that is going to cause outrage if there is a massive layoff. I don't think that was the best bet to make over bakery goods.

[Marc Vaughan]

With a lot of people out of work and many of those with jobs have had to endure pay cuts, no raises and less benefits for more money (including me), I really think they should've been grateful that they had a relatively steady job. Management will do what they have always done (as in my company, which I chose not to become one) and if I demand more, I will likely be out of a job myself in my tenuous industry.

Its up to every individual to decide their worth and what they will endure to keep a position.

For me personally, either I'm respected and paid what I consider a reasonable amount or I'd leave that position - most likely looking to start up my own venture if a position I liked wasn't available.

If you put up with 'shit' then you're not only damaging yourself - but also encouraging the people shoveling shit on you to do it to other people ...

(just my take - I've never been good with tolerating bullies myself)

[sabotai]

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

Sure. When you make yourself indispensable to the company, you can ask for whatever you want and most likely get it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Hostess is a tired brand and they've already been through bankruptcy, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they've had legit financial issues as opposed to maybe just trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of workers to buy another golden rocket car. I'm guessing it's not fun to be Hostess management these days.

They're the #2 breadmaker in the country.

Twinkies and their unhealthy shit are a tired brand, and I have no doubt they should have got rid of those product lines, but there's got to be room for 2 breadmakers in this country.

Now given I know it's not that simple - they have huge overhead and probably big pension obligations going along with the brands they need to dump, but really?

Here's a little history in 2 seconds of reading the cnn.com article

In September, one of its major unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, voted narrowly to accept a new contract (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/14/news/companies/hostess-court/index.html?iid=EL)with reduced wages and benefits (http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/11/news/companies/twinkies-hostess-bankruptcy/index.html?iid=EL). The Bakers' union rejected the deal (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/17/hostess-union-deal/?iid=EL), however, prompting Hostess management to secure permission from a bankruptcy court to force a new concession contract on workers.

The new contract cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries were then scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions, including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.


So management just got a new contract and still couldn't keep them open? Sounds like incompetent management to me.

[cartman]

I bet Bimbo buys the brands and assets and keeps things going.

[JediKooter]

So management just got a new contract and still couldn't keep them open? Sounds like incompetent management to me.

That's what it sounds like to me as well. You have the best name brand recognition in the country for that market and your brain trust of a management team fuck it up like Norv Turner on a Sunday afternoon.

I love the 'blame the worker', 'pay them shit' mentality of people. Hmmm ever wonder why those people who get paid shit, perform like shit? Why bother going, above and beyond, with management attitudes like that?

[molson]

I don't agree with the implication that it's always unethical for management to seek reduce wage costs. People bring this up even when the labor are millionaires like in the NHL. "The owners are trying to cut their salaries, those bastards!" Nobody thinks its unethical for workers to try to increase their wages. What's the difference? It's a negotiation. Depending on leverage and a million other factors, sometimes it can go one way and sometimes it goes the other way.

[molson]

It's also interesting to me how deep-rooted the labor v. management thing is even though our country has transitioned quite a bit to where there's a lot more management and a lot less labor. Being a manager is just a job too, and they have their own managers and stresses and they can be cut loose for poor performance or just to save a buck just as quickly as anyone else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So management just got a new contract and still couldn't keep them open? Sounds like incompetent management to me.

I don't think - based on reading the linked articles - that's exactly how this one worked.

Teamsters Union represents the non-baking employees & they approved a deal. Union that represents the baking employees rejected it ... which basically made Teamster approval meaningless. Not much to sweep up, deliver, etc. if there's nothing baked.

Bankruptcy court ordered all employees to comply with a revised contract offer -- one that added two directors seats for union reps, likely in response to the bakers union rejection including their expression of an extreme lack of confidence in the current management's ability to salvage the company -- union for the bakers refused by going on strike and at that point Hostess followed through on their blunt assurance that a strike would lead to liquidation, which had to be approved by the bankruptcy court (hence the month or so delay that gets us to November)

[Passacaglia]

This wouldn't have happened if they had stuck with banana filling!

[JonInMiddleGA]

I love the 'blame the worker', 'pay them shit' mentality of people. Hmmm ever wonder why those people who get paid shit, perform like shit? Why bother going, above and beyond, with management attitudes like that?

If considerable numbers of them were into "above & beyond", they likely wouldn't be in the paid like shit category in the first place.

[molson]

Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

That mindset sounds defeatist off the bat. "Asking for more?" Like it's your dad or something? Is that your idea of a positive economy and a direction we should try to move towards, where "management" just decides, based on pure generosity, I guess whether to give their kids an extra scrap one day?

I do think it's kind of fortunate that our economy isn't just a series of factories with a president and then thousands of grunt workers in poverty in each one. It seems like that's how people try to portray it sometimes but our economy is pretty dynamic and provides a lot of different ways to make a living. The managers are not a literal ruling class like they're portrayed. It may seem like that sometimes if you're a low-skilled worker for a dying brand, but it's not close to reality for most of us. If we decided that it's unacceptable to have those kinds of setups even on the fringes though, I'm not sure what you can do about it.

[DougW]

Hopefully, the workers land on their feet.

http://cherniseyvette.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/0011.jpg

[molson]

but there's got to be room for 2 breadmakers in this country.


There's way more than two, and I think there's a lot more smaller ones than they used to be. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. It's a little odd to see so many liberal pro-labor people mourning the loss of a giant corporation. Maybe the economy did its job here and it did it well.

[johneh]

I would imagine the brands still have some value so I would expect "Twinkies" and "King Dons" to still be available eventually - just by a difference company. I would guess they will sell those off the rights in bankruptcy to the highest bidders.

[johneh]

Hopefully, the workers land on their feet.

http://cherniseyvette.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/0011.jpg
If they get laid off they are all free to come live with me until they get back on there feet!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hopefully, the workers land on their feet.


I'm thinking I'd prefer some of those off their feet :devil:

[CrimsonFox]

If they land in water, luckily they have floatation devices built in.

[JediKooter]

If considerable numbers of them were into "above & beyond", they likely wouldn't be in the paid like shit category in the first place.

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

Quite honestly, the more you pay me, the more flexible I am. You pay me minimum wage, good luck getting me to work for you on the weekend or crunch time. You pay me 30 bucks an hour and my flexibility increases quite a bit. It's just like when someone is inquiring about how much it will cost to redo their kitchen. They only want to pay 2K, but, want 10K worth of work and material. No contractor in their right mind would do that. Why should an employee?

Don't get me wrong though. There are plenty of sad sack employees out there and should really not be working anything other than a minimum wage job. Plus, the one thing that really irks me about unions is them catering to the shittiest of union members. Unions should expect their members to be the cream of the crop (and demand it), not the backwash of someones coffee mug. I also have a lot of respect for people who have raised a company from the ground up, even if they weren't successful. That takes a lot of balls to do something with no safety net. I just think it's odd that people complain when other people try and fight for better wages and/or benefits. In a perfect world those people would just find another job that has better wages and benefits, but, we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes people are locked into staying at the same job and can't look for another job. It just becomes an ugly cycle.

So to make a long story a bit longer, I'm really in the middle of this subject. On one hand, I can see managements point of view and they have some valid points. On the other hand, I see the employees point of view and they have some valid points as well. And in the case of Hostess, it sounds like (no pun intended) that management still wanted the whole pie that they've had for years, but, instead of adjusting to a saturated market, they decided to pinch their employees instead and it backfired on them. Now everyone is out of a job or will be soon, depending on how the bankruptcy goes.

[JPhillips]

Sure. When you make yourself indispensable to the company, you can ask for whatever you want and most likely get it.

But that will never be the majority of people. Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them? Is it ever possible to structure income in a way that's immoral?

[Suicane75]

Are you guys even looking at that picture? Forget cutting back wages by 8%, they need to cut back the ugly by about 75%.

[Blackadar]

Sure. When you make yourself indispensable to the company, you can ask for whatever you want and most likely get it.

No one is indispensable.

[molson]

But that will never be the majority of people. Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them? Is it ever possible to structure income in a way that's immoral?

Indispensable is a pretty high standard but I don't think you have to be that high to avoid being a slave with no choice, and "happy for whatever job creators give you" I've quit probably 10 jobs since high school to move to a better jobs, and I'm hardly indispensable, or even a go-getter. I think most people have pretty similar job histories.

[JPhillips]

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them? Is it ever possible to structure income in a way that's immoral?

Philosophically, I'd say it's pretty damned difficult, short of literally putting a gun to their head & forcing them into literal slave labor.

Don't like the offer then don't accept it, go find somewhere else with a better deal.

One of the very first - and most important - lessons I learned when entering the job market was this: the basic agreement is that you will do X to the best of your ability and in return you will receive Y as compensation. That's the moral contract between employer & employee. If you are no longer able or willing to live up to that agreement then you either renegotiate the terms or you part ways.

What's it immoral is being a slackass employee - effectively stealing from the employer by not even attempting to meet your responsibility - or failing to pay the agreed upon wage while still expecting the same work (i.e. short pay without notice/renegotiation)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are you guys even looking at that picture? Forget cutting back wages by 8%, they need to cut back the ugly by about 75%.

You're falling into the familiar trap of looking at faces (which I did after absorbing a first impression).

[GoldenEagle]

The real tragedy here is zingers.

[JPhillips]

Indispensable is a pretty high standard but I don't think you have to be that high to avoid being a slave with no choice, and "happy for whatever job creators give you" I've quit probably 10 jobs since high school to move to a better jobs, and I'm hardly indispensable, or even a go-getter. I think most people have pretty similar job histories.

You're at the high end of the scale, as are almost all of us here. There is an attitude that employees shouldn't be guaranteed anything they can't negotiate. In Mitt's 47% speech he decried a guarantee of food. My questions are aimed at those people that think all the power should belong to management and a select few employees that have advanced skills. If there is no balance to that model won't the eventual end point be an even more unbalanced society?

Personally I prefer the German model of strong worker representation at the board level. I like partnering the workers with the owners so that everyone has equal information and a stake in the future growth of the company during negotiations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Personally I prefer the German model of strong worker representation at the board level. I like partnering the workers with the owners so that everyone has equal information and a stake in the future growth of the company during negotiations.

Least common denominator.

[JPhillips]

Philosophically, I'd say it's pretty damned difficult, short of literally putting a gun to their head & forcing them into literal slave labor.

Don't like the offer then don't accept it, go find somewhere else with a better deal.

One of the very first - and most important - lessons I learned when entering the job market was this: the basic agreement is that you will do X to the best of your ability and in return you will receive Y as compensation. That's the moral contract between employer & employee. If you are no longer able or willing to live up to that agreement then you either renegotiate the terms or you part ways.

What's it immoral is being a slackass employee - effectively stealing from the employer by not even attempting to meet your responsibility - or failing to pay the agreed upon wage while still expecting the same work (i.e. short pay without notice/renegotiation)

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.

[sabotai]

But that will never be the majority of people.

Nope.

Most people, then, should be happy for whatever the job creators give them?
Yes. If people choose not to educate themselves and develop a set of skills that are in demand, they should be happy with whatever time card punching no skill set required job they can find.

Edit: And before you start talking about the cost of college, I'm talking about on the job learning. Learn why it is you do your job. If you work at a machine all day, learn how the machine works. If you work at a computer, learn how to debug and fix common computer problems. There's plenty of ways for people to help their position by just learning about the ins and outs of their job and the equipment they use.

[CrimsonFox]

The real tragedy here is zingers.

coconut raspberry.....

[RainMaker]

Does anyone else think Hostess products went to shit a little while back? I used to like Twinkies and cupcakes but they just aren't that good anymore. Obviously cut back on something years ago to save on costs.

[sabotai]

No one is indispensable.

Ok, you can play the semantics game if you want, but it's a common word to use when talking about employment.

[BishopMVP]

That's one of the explicit tradeoffs of unionized work though. In exchange you get (theoretically) better working conditions, an advocate for benefits, etc.And sometimes you get overreach and lay-offs across the board because your co-workers won't compromise. It's not like there was an option between being a unionized or non-unionized worker here, and thus the significant percentage of the current workforce that was willing to compromise (as well as the unemployed people who would have been willing to take those jobs) are now completely out of work.

I have no problem with skilled people organizing themselves into guilds - a.k.a. we have skills, we're setting baselines so we're not competing with each other - but when it becomes a monopolized union it reduces flexibility on both sides (and leads to corruption and violence at the fringes to maintain the monopoly).

When you're working in a replaceable job and you don't like it, go find a new one. If there isn't a better one out there, there are reasons for that and maybe you should take the hint instead of demanding things from your current company.

[EagleFan]

But doesn't that eventually lead to an almost feudalistic society? Is it ever permissible to ask for more or should we always be thankful that at least management hasn't gotten rid of us?

It's relative common sense in this case. You have a company that had already declared bankruptcy and was in bad shape. You can't get what's not there.

There are plenty of times when union demands are helpful but sadly those times have been shrinking as unions are now their own little corporation the way they are run. The people running those unions are paying for their BMW's through the blood and sweat of the workers and are no different then the companies that they are "fighting" in many times.

Sadly the workers allowed the union to lead them to slaughter in this case. It's not much different than a majority of the voters who really had no idea what any of the issues were but only believed what the ads told them or some stupid comments flying around the internet.

I went several years without a raise and taking other cuts without pushing for anything better because I knew the company was in trouble and it would be a stupid time for a power play. It's all about timing and knowing what else is going on that affect your circumstances.


Since we're on a football based message board: It's like being 4th and 25 on your own 10 in the second quarter with your backup quarterback in. You punt and wait for a better time to try to strike.

[Galaxy]

The union didn't push the nuclear button because it was just the fun thing to do. They did it because they were pushed into a corner, all the while the fund managers were openly sticking it to them. At some point, people get pretty tired of having their faces rubbed in shit and fight back. This was, in essence, a big "fuck you" to management - and from what I understand, the management deserved it big time. The door swings both ways.

When whoever buys the Hostess assets decides to reopen some of those plants, at least some of the employees will get their jobs back, likely at better wages. In the meanwhile, some people will get better jobs, some will get worse jobs, some will get equal jobs and some won't get any jobs at all.

I don't see the new owners pay $20 a hour and similar health care benefits in the future.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/economy/hostess-jobs/index.html?iid=EL

The Chairman and CEO on CNBC this morning said the union bosses were in agreement with the proposed deal and tried to get the members behind it, but it got voted down by the union members.

More details on the proposed deal:

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20121116&id=15805307

[BishopMVP]

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.No, it's not, unless there's something preventing people from starting competing businesses.

[sabotai]

Does anyone else think Hostess products went to shit a little while back? I used to like Twinkies and cupcakes but they just aren't that good anymore. Obviously cut back on something years ago to save on costs.

I thought it was that I was just getting older. Really sweet or otherwise crappy food that I loved as a kid I hate now.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think - based on reading the linked articles - that's exactly how this one worked.

Teamsters Union represents the non-baking employees & they approved a deal. Union that represents the baking employees rejected it ... which basically made Teamster approval meaningless. Not much to sweep up, deliver, etc. if there's nothing baked.

Bankruptcy court ordered all employees to comply with a revised contract offer -- one that added two directors seats for union reps, likely in response to the bakers union rejection including their expression of an extreme lack of confidence in the current management's ability to salvage the company -- union for the bakers refused by going on strike and at that point Hostess followed through on their blunt assurance that a strike would lead to liquidation, which had to be approved by the bankruptcy court (hence the month or so delay that gets us to November)

Aaah - maybe I misread the timeline/misunderstood. I thought that the new contract had actually been implemented.

[DaddyTorgo]

There's way more than two, and I think there's a lot more smaller ones than they used to be. That's not necessarily a terrible thing. It's a little odd to see so many liberal pro-labor people mourning the loss of a giant corporation. Maybe the economy did its job here and it did it well.

Of course there are - it's just weird to see the #2 in difficulty. Particularly a well-entrenched #2.

[Galaxy]

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

Sales doesn't necessarily mean profits...

[DaddyTorgo]

The more I read the more this looks like an excuse to liquidate and take the profits. The court filings only show a minimal loss due to the strike, but a greater loss in Sept. not due to the strike. The company claims about 1 billion in assets and had sales of 2.5 billion last operating year.

A one week strike didn't close Hostess.

From activist hedge funds? No wayyy

[Blackadar]

Ok, you can play the semantics game if you want, but it's a common word to use when talking about employment.

And an extremely foolish one if you ever consider yourself indispensable. I'm literally the one one in the world who has my combination of skill certifications and I'm not indispensable. It may take 2 or 3 people to replace me with a fair amount of heartburn on their part, but they could let me go this afternoon. I've seen far too many people inflate their real sense of wroth in regards to their perceived skill set and I've seen "lowly" employees who were far more valuable due to what they just knew about the company - even if senior management didn't know it.

[Galaxy]

Yes. If people choose not to educate themselves and develop a set of skills that are in demand, they should be happy with whatever time card punching no skill set required job they can find.

Edit: And before you start talking about the cost of college, I'm talking about on the job learning. Learn why it is you do your job. If you work at a machine all day, learn how the machine works. If you work at a computer, learn how to debug and fix common computer problems. There's plenty of ways for people to help their position by just learning about the ins and outs of their job and the equipment they use.

Contracting out and self-entrepreneurship (even more so on a small scale than the typical, go big mindset) is going to be the part of the new model of the future. Technology is going to push more jobs out. If self-driving cars become a reality in the next decade or two, that is going to a major game changer as well.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Metro Detroiters hoarding Twinkies, Ding Dongs as Hostess seeks to shutter | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121116/BIZ/211160432/Metro-Detroiters-hoarding-Twinkies-Ding-Dongs-Hostess-seeks-shutter?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

[Buccaneer]

Trust me, taste buds will change. :)

Interesting discussion. One of the things that have always bothered me (among many regarding unions) is the demand for job security (not saying it's applicable here), esp. in reducing/eliminating the flexibility of weeding out the incompetent and dead weight. No companies (public or private) should tolerate such employees and there should be no rules forcing them to remain on the job (as I have seen in the past).

[CrimsonFox]

I bet with all the hording people do of the stuff that they will be saved. :)

[RedKingGold]

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

Quite honestly, the more you pay me, the more flexible I am. You pay me minimum wage, good luck getting me to work for you on the weekend or crunch time. You pay me 30 bucks an hour and my flexibility increases quite a bit. It's just like when someone is inquiring about how much it will cost to redo their kitchen. They only want to pay 2K, but, want 10K worth of work and material. No contractor in their right mind would do that. Why should an employee?

Don't get me wrong though. There are plenty of sad sack employees out there and should really not be working anything other than a minimum wage job. Plus, the one thing that really irks me about unions is them catering to the shittiest of union members. Unions should expect their members to be the cream of the crop (and demand it), not the backwash of someones coffee mug. I also have a lot of respect for people who have raised a company from the ground up, even if they weren't successful. That takes a lot of balls to do something with no safety net. I just think it's odd that people complain when other people try and fight for better wages and/or benefits. In a perfect world those people would just find another job that has better wages and benefits, but, we don't live in a perfect world and sometimes people are locked into staying at the same job and can't look for another job. It just becomes an ugly cycle.

So to make a long story a bit longer, I'm really in the middle of this subject. On one hand, I can see managements point of view and they have some valid points. On the other hand, I see the employees point of view and they have some valid points as well. And in the case of Hostess, it sounds like (no pun intended) that management still wanted the whole pie that they've had for years, but, instead of adjusting to a saturated market, they decided to pinch their employees instead and it backfired on them. Now everyone is out of a job or will be soon, depending on how the bankruptcy goes.

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you'd be fine with a system where every employer pays one dollar a day with no benefits? We won't get there with the current laws, but that's the end point of a system where nothing balances the desires of owners.

I have always opposed the existence of minimum wage laws as an unwarranted intrusion on the basic principle of free will.

An employee is worth what an employer is willing to pay, no more.

[molson]

People are selling twinkies on ebay and finding buyers.

[Galaxy]

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?


http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/economy/hostess-jobs/index.html?iid=EL

"" Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.

According to a letter sent to employees, workers will not receive severance pay or pay for unused vacation time. Hostess is directing employees to COBRA for continuing medical insurance coverage.

Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits in most states, but those workers who were not striking will likely have some access to weekly benefit checks.

Meanwhile job opportunities at Hostess competitors are hardly plentiful.

"The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in an interview on CNBC. "

"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them."

Another 6,700 Hostess workers were represented by the Teamsters, a union that was sharply critical of the Bakers' decision to strike. Those jobs largely include truckers, many who both transported and sold Hostess products.

Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year, said O'Brien."

According to this article, Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money (http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20121116&id=15805307) ,

"The company was asking workers to agree to an 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions.

Hostess managers have complained that terms of many of the 300 labor contracts that the company has in place have bogged down its ability to be both nimble and cost-competitive.

"The union has been the death of this company," said a human resources manager who recently left Hostess."

[Sun Tzu]

Zingers and Ho-Ho's are my munchie of choice during those munchie moments. This is...tragic.

[stevew]

The real tragedy here is zingers.

Agreed 100% although Dolly Madison also makes them

Vanilla Zingers are way better than Twinkies

[BillJasper]

So management just got a new contract and still couldn't keep them open? Sounds like incompetent management to me.

It doesn't help matters that a box of Twinkies is close to four dollars and a loaf of bread is like $2.50.

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

[Blackadar]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/economy/hostess-jobs/index.html?iid=EL

"" Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour, plus had access to medical benefits, according to Michael O'Brien, a former Hostess employee who had worked at the company for 45 years, in various sales functions, before he was offered a buyout last year.

According to a letter sent to employees, workers will not receive severance pay or pay for unused vacation time. Hostess is directing employees to COBRA for continuing medical insurance coverage.

Striking workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits in most states, but those workers who were not striking will likely have some access to weekly benefit checks.

Meanwhile job opportunities at Hostess competitors are hardly plentiful.

"The industry has overcapacity. We're overcapacity. Our rivals are overcapacity," Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in an interview on CNBC. "

"People inside the plants really made a good living," O'Brien said. "I feel sorry for them."

Another 6,700 Hostess workers were represented by the Teamsters, a union that was sharply critical of the Bakers' decision to strike. Those jobs largely include truckers, many who both transported and sold Hostess products.

Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year, said O'Brien."

According to this article, Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business: Thomson Reuters Business News - MSN Money (http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20121116&id=15805307) ,

"The company was asking workers to agree to an 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions.

Hostess managers have complained that terms of many of the 300 labor contracts that the company has in place have bogged down its ability to be both nimble and cost-competitive.

"The union has been the death of this company," said a human resources manager who recently left Hostess."

That article is whoppingly one sided. I'll pick out some examples:

"Michael O'Brien" - From what I can tell, this guy was a salesperson. He wouldn't know who made what from line employees.

"Many production workers earned up to $20 an hour" - Perhaps with overtime. From what I've heard (though there's obviously not a written source for this), the average wage was less than $14/hr prior to any pay cut (which would drop that to $12.88/hr).

"The company was asking for a 8 percent pay cut, a 20 percent increase in healthcare costs, closure of 10 to 12 plants and changes to pension and workday provisions." - 8%, 30% and the "changes" to the pension included not paying liabilities they've already accrued.

"Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year" - This has nothing to do with the strike and these weren't the employees striking. The entire purpose was to put a big number in the article so people who are scanning it will say "oh, wow, they went on strike when they could make $100k a year!".

Not to mention there's no accounting for the millions pulled out of the company by the hedge fund managers since they bought it out of bankruptcy a few years ago, nor the pay cut the workers took back then. Obvious article is obvious.

[JediKooter]

You really think union workers were getting minimum wages? What fantasy world do you live in?

Just read through my entire post and I don't see anything where I said that union workers were making minimum wages. Try again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"Trucking is a higher paying field, offering a national average of $22 an hour. Including base pay and commission, Hostess Teamsters workers could have earned between $50,000 to $100,000 a year" - This has nothing to do with the strike. The entire purpose was to put a big number in the article so people who are scanning it will say "oh, wow, they went on strike when they could make $100k a year!".

I'm pretty sure that bit was included so people might understand why the Teamsters approved the previous offer & were (reportedly) miffed that the bakers didn't.

[Blackadar]

I'm pretty sure that bit was included so people might understand why the Teamsters approved the previous offer & were (reportedly) miffed that the bakers didn't.

And if you're an owner-operator, $50k a year isn't shit when driving a truck.

[Sun Tzu]

Vanilla Zingers are way better than Twinkies

This +1,000,000

[Honolulu_Blue]

Vanilla Zingers were probably my favorite. And then the Cupcakes.

I can't remember the last time I had any kind of Hostess food. It's all pretty gross.

[sabotai]

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

The only name brand cereal I have bought in the last few years is Kashi. Every other cereal, I buy the generic brand because it's 50% the cost of the name brand (and generally tastes the same). I only buy Kashi once in awhile because I can't find a generic version of their cereal.

[Sun Tzu]

The economics just can't work when you can get off brands for less than half of that.

Most of the Hostess junk food is $1/per. How much cheaper could it possibly get?

[Lathum]

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

Quite honestly, the more you pay me, the more flexible I am. You pay me minimum wage, good luck getting me to work for you on the weekend or crunch time. You pay me 30 bucks an hour and my flexibility increases quite a bit. It's just like when someone is inquiring about how much it will cost to redo their kitchen. They only want to pay 2K, but, want 10K worth of work and material. No contractor in their right mind would do that. Why should an employee?
.


Then all you ever will be is a minimum wage employee. My father taught me at a very young age no matter what you do try your best, because what you put into it is what you get out of it.

People ( not saying you) seem to think all managment was born into it, like their father in law is the CEO or something, and they sit around all day lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most managers work hard to get where thay are at. Either in that industry or through scholing that provided them oppritunity.

If you are willing to work hard also there isn't any reason you can't rise above minimum wage status.

[RedKingGold]

Just read through my entire post and I don't see anything where I said that union workers were making minimum wages. Try again.

Read CLOSER.

The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it

[Chief Rum]

For me personally, either I'm respected and paid what I consider a reasonable amount or I'd leave that position - most likely looking to start up my own venture if a position I liked wasn't available.

Announcing "Championship Football Manager I: Footie In 4D!"

[stevew]

People are selling twinkies on ebay and finding buyers.

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

[Grover]

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

Calling Twinkies "food" is quite a stretch.

[Galaxy]

Then all you ever will be is a minimum wage employee. My father taught me at a very young age no matter what you do try your best, because what you put into it is what you get out of it.

People ( not saying you) seem to think all managment was born into it, like their father in law is the CEO or something, and they sit around all day lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most managers work hard to get where thay are at. Either in that industry or through scholing that provided them oppritunity.

If you are willing to work hard also there isn't any reason you can't rise above minimum wage status.

Not just hard, but smart. Select the right degree or school, be willing to take chances, and always, always continue to expand your toolbox of knowledge and skills.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought food sales were banned on those sites.

Probably listed as "collectible" instead of food.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Most of the Hostess junk food is $1/per. How much cheaper could it possibly get?

Single serving maybe, but boxes of like 6 are around $4 and change here.
Compare to half (or less) for the WalMart house brand.

I was never really Hostess guy, I'm a 3rd generation Little Debbie man myself, but the Great Value stuff from Wally World kicks the crap out of LD with several of the knockoffs (Fudge Round clone in particular, WM's is a lot better)

[JediKooter]

Read CLOSER.

You need to read CLOSER. Nowhere in that paragraph do I say anything regarding unions or union employees.

I do agree with you, up to a certain point. I have no problems with entry level wages and an employee showing that they are worth getting paid more. The part that I have a problem with (and nothing with what you've said) is, the employers who continue to pay good workers minimum wages, yet expect premium work are then shocked if that employee complains about it. As much as managers love to pat themselves on the back, it's the employees in the trenches that are doing the real work. It's that guy that's making 7 dollars an hour and can't go to his son's school performance because he can't get the time off, but the manager making 20 an hour can? Sounds to me like the guy making 20 bucks an hour is less important to the company overall.

I bolded the part you cherry picked.

I don't mention union at all until my 3rd paragraph. Try again chief.

[JediKooter]

Then all you ever will be is a minimum wage employee. My father taught me at a very young age no matter what you do try your best, because what you put into it is what you get out of it.

Yes I agree with this. However, there is no guarantee you will be rewarded for that effort. So I think it boils down to how much or how long a person is willing to chase that carrot before moving on.

People ( not saying you) seem to think all managment was born into it, like their father in law is the CEO or something, and they sit around all day lighting cigars with $100 bills. Most managers work hard to get where thay are at. Either in that industry or through scholing that provided them oppritunity.

If you are willing to work hard also there isn't any reason you can't rise above minimum wage status.

I do think some people think that management was born into it or lucked into those positions and I'm sure there is some nepotism or cronyism going on as well. A crappy CEO or manager should be thrown out on the streets just as fast as a crappy employee should. It's just easier to get rid of lower level employees in my opinion.

[Blackadar]

Just read through my entire post and I don't see anything where I said that union workers were making minimum wages.

Read CLOSER.

You need to read CLOSER.

I think I just put my face through my laptop screen.

[thesloppy]

I've worked plenty of places where trying your best, or going above & beyond while being paid crap wages will only get you labeled as someone willing to work extra hard for crap wages.

I think the concept that you can just work hard and success will follow is sadly kind of a relic these days....at least in cases of massive, globalized and/or unionized workforces, even though the beginnings of those places is where that kind of post-WWII ideal was first born. I hate to say that nowadays, if you're in that kind of low-skill, over-populated workforce you're better served by putting in an absolutely average performance, and hoping to get promoted based on attendance, longevity and/or some flavor of nepotism/politics. Of course there are always exceptions, but if you truly are a hard worker, I think you're best served by just finding a smaller/more private pond in which your efforts will be sure to be noticed.

This discussion reminds me of a friend's story from when he started working at Freightliner, many years ago. He's new on the line, so he figures he better make himself known by working as hard as he can, and piling out as many parts as possible as soon as he hits the floor. So, he's only working for a couple hours before the foreman DOES take notice of him working so hard, and he ambles over and introduces himself, before saying "Whoah son, you're working WAY too fast. See, we've got a quota here, and if we produce over that quota, suddenly THAT's going to be the quota, and everybody's going to have to work as hard as you....and we wouldn't want that, now would we?" That kind of situation is probably the exception rather than the rule, but I do think some milder version of that kind of thinking has worked its way into a lot of the larger, modern American workplaces.

[DanGarion]

Does anyone else think Hostess products went to shit a little while back? I used to like Twinkies and cupcakes but they just aren't that good anymore. Obviously cut back on something years ago to save on costs.

Try many of your favorites from your childhood most of the stuff is shit nowadays. Cost cutting has led to crappier ingredients and sacrifice of quality and flavor.

[Warhammer]

Try many of your favorites from your childhood most of the stuff is shit nowadays. Cost cutting has led to crappier ingredients and sacrifice of quality and flavor.

That's why all Controllers should be drug out the back and shot...

Modern Marvels had a great show on coffee where they talked about how it is made, and how in the 60s the accountants changed the beans being used, and coffee consumption dropped by something like 50% in the country.

It wasn't until Starbucks came in and started using the Arabica beans again (I could have this backwards), that coffee consumption started rising again here.

[RedKingGold]

You need to read CLOSER. Nowhere in that paragraph do I say anything regarding unions or union employees.



I bolded the part you cherry picked.

I don't mention union at all until my 3rd paragraph. Try again chief.

What non-union workers make is irrelevant to this discussion. So, thanks for adding nothing then.

[JediKooter]

What non-union workers make is irrelevant to this discussion. So, thanks for adding nothing then.

Awww, you have no argument or can't just say that you may have misread what I wrote (I hope you're not a teacher), so you resort to even more strawmen comments. That's so cute.

Didn't know you were the king of "Making sure everything stays exactly 100% on topic in every single thread".

[RainMaker]

That's why all Controllers should be drug out the back and shot...

Modern Marvels had a great show on coffee where they talked about how it is made, and how in the 60s the accountants changed the beans being used, and coffee consumption dropped by something like 50% in the country.

It wasn't until Starbucks came in and started using the Arabica beans again (I could have this backwards), that coffee consumption started rising again here.

I will need to check that out. For me, if I'm going to splurge on something bad for me, I want it to be good. I'm not wasting my calories on Dominos if I'm going out for a pizza. And I think at some point I decided I'm not wasting those calories on crappy Hostess.

So it makes sense if they cut back on the quality, sales would drop. It's a product you're not consuming all the time and if you're going to splurge and eat something like it, you want it to be worth it.

Now my friend thinks it's all in my head and it's the same. But I swear those cupcakes had the top layer that wasn't hard as a rock and cream that actually tasted good.

[RainMaker]

I don't get the union vs executive griping. It's a free market and both sides were trying to negotiate the best deal possible. The union didn't bankrupt them, they got the best possible deal that they could for their work. Any person on the planet is going to do that regardless of skill.

It's fair to ask if the union dug their heels in too hard and cost themselves nice jobs. But they didn't destroy Hostess, they simply lost themselves their jobs. If a business fails, it's on the people who own it, not the employees who wanted more money.

These things shouldn't be about whether unions are good or bad. Whether they deserved the money or not. It's a private business arrangement between two parties. They couldn't come to an agreement and everyone lost.

[molson]

I'm pretty sure twinkies at least are exactly the same as they were. I used to love those things, and then I hadn't had one in 10+ years until I randomly bought a box a few months ago. Holy shit they were amazing. I could have eaten the whole box right there. Of course, I have the taste preferences of an 8-year old boy. I try to eat healthy, but it doesn't make me happy that I have to.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I think Twinkies were the only one that didn't have changes to its recipe over time. The exception being the cream filling which changed during WW2 from banana to vanilla.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I knew the company was in trouble when they switched Ding-Dongs to a plastic wrapper from the foil. Things were never the same.

[Drake]

The fact that the possibility is even on the table that we could have Twinkies made by Bimbo is enough to convince me that we should stop arguing about this and let history run its course.

I would buy stock in Twinkies by Bimbo.

[CrimsonFox]

Wow all the stores around have no twinkies. Shut out! DENIED!

All I got was a box of hohos and some solo packs of zingers.

[CrimsonFox]

Yeah, I think Twinkies were the only one that didn't have changes to its recipe over time. The exception being the cream filling which changed during WW2 from banana to vanilla.

Just hearing the words "banana filling" makes me vomit a little. YUK!

[CrimsonFox]

By the way, if you really want this crap, the Little Debbies "Cloud Cakes" are on the shelf right below where the twinkies were.

[Drake]

Just hearing the words "banana filling" makes me vomit a little. YUK!

Not if they're Twinkies by Bimbo, then it makes perfect sense and I buy twice as much stock.

TWINKIES by Bimbo **NOW WITH MORE BANANA FILLING**

[CrimsonFox]

Not if they're Twinkies by Bimbo, then it makes perfect sense and I buy twice as much stock.

TWINKIES by Bimbo **NOW WITH MORE BANANA FILLING**

I can't stop laughing at this. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[EagleFan]

lol, saw twinkies on ebay for $1.5 million. No bids but seriously? Hell, there are some twinkies getting bids of almost $20 a box on ebay. Come on people, there are still plenty on the shelves.

[DaddyTorgo]

The fact that the possibility is even on the table that we could have Twinkies made by Bimbo is enough to convince me that we should stop arguing about this and let history run its course.

I would buy stock in Twinkies by Bimbo.

Was talking about this earlier and hit up wikipedia. Didn't realize that Grupo Bimbo is the largest baking company IN THE WORLD.

They own brands like Arnolds, Boboli, Entenman's, Sara Lee, Thomas', etc.

[MizzouRah]

What the F is this world coming to? What's next, Frito-Lay going out of business?

[Izulde]

lol, saw twinkies on ebay for $1.5 million. No bids but seriously? Hell, there are some twinkies getting bids of almost $20 a box on ebay. Come on people, there are still plenty on the shelves.

Not in a lot of places.

Wal-Mart and Target here, sold out.

THE ENTIRE CITY OF MILWAUKEE is sold out of *EVERY* Hostess product except a pack of Ding-Dongs and some of those Donettes.

[ISiddiqui]

The funny part is when some other company buys the part of the company responsible for Twinkies and they go back on the shelves. Those ebay buyers are going to be PISSED.

[Izulde]

Dola, my own raiding efforts

Target
3 boxes of chocolate cupcakes
7 boxes of Ho-Hos

7-11
4 individual regularTwinkie packages
3 individual orange cupcake packages
3 individual chocolate cupcake packages
3 individual Suzy Q packages
3 individual Chocodile packages

[Grover]

Was talking about this earlier and hit up wikipedia. Didn't realize that Grupo Bimbo is the largest baking company IN THE WORLD.

They own brands like Arnolds, Boboli, Entenman's, Sara Lee, Thomas', etc.

Wow. This is news to me as well.

[chinaski]

I dont care about twinkies, but i dont know what ill do without my raspberry filled powdered donuts!

[CrimsonFox]

Hostess Zingers Raspberry Iced Cakes Half Eaten by Owner of Rockridge 4WD | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hostess-Zingers-Raspberry-Iced-Cakes-Half-Eaten-By-Owner-of-Rockridge-4WD-/251185352147?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7bd04dd3)

It has 2 bids...

[Apathetic Lurker]

The funny part is when some other company buys the part of the company responsible for Twinkies and they go back on the shelves. Those ebay buyers are going to be PISSED.

Pissed at being so stupid maybe...But thats about it.

[tucking fypo]

Female Student: What's gonna happen to Twinkies and Ding Dongs?
Me: I guess they'll sell what have in inventory and that'll be it.
Female Student: WHAT??? Reagan would bitch-slap those people.

[CrimsonFox]

They really haven't changed or come up with any new products in quite awhile. Not totally shocking really. They should have bagged Suzy-Qs and Cupcakes. Maybe gotten a couple really good variations of hohos, dingdongs and twinkies.

So instead of the hard chocolate outside they could have used orange or cherry too. A different kind of cake make too. Like cherry with chocolate filling.

I think they DID try to make them healthier at one point but I've heard the lite twinkies weren't as tasty.

It's just not a good market anymore in this semi health conscious world.

[Abe Sargent]

All I know, other than the inability for me to go local to buy cheap food as mentioned earlier, is that this is clearly the final sign that the world will end next month

[cuervo72]

Female Student: What's gonna happen to Twinkies and Ding Dongs?
Me: I guess they'll sell what have in inventory and that'll be it.
Female Student: WHAT??? Reagan would bitch-slap those people.

Ok, this made me smile.

Then it made me envision giant, flying Twinkies.

[CrimsonFox]

Ok, this made me smile.

Then it made me envision giant, flying Twinkies.

and then THAT makes me think of people trying to down the flying twinkies by throwing other twinkies at them :)

[finketr]

Agreed 100% although Dolly Madison also makes them

Vanilla Zingers are way better than Twinkies

Dolly Madison is a Hostess Brand

[Buccaneer]

Lot of sick people, those hoarding and those eating this crap.

[cuervo72]

and then THAT makes me think of people trying to down the flying twinkies by throwing other twinkies at them :)

Surface-to-air Bugles might do it.

[GrantDawg]

I've worked plenty of places where trying your best, or going above & beyond while being paid crap wages will only get you labeled as someone willing to work extra hard for crap wages.

I think the concept that you can just work hard and success will follow is sadly kind of a relic these days....at least in cases of massive, globalized and/or unionized workforces, even though the beginnings of those places is where that kind of post-WWII ideal was first born. I hate to say that nowadays, if you're in that kind of low-skill, over-populated workforce you're better served by putting in an absolutely average performance, and hoping to get promoted based on attendance, longevity and/or some flavor of nepotism/politics. Of course there are always exceptions, but if you truly are a hard worker, I think you're best served by just finding a smaller/more private pond in which your efforts will be sure to be noticed.

This discussion reminds me of a friend's story from when he started working at Freightliner, many years ago. He's new on the line, so he figures he better make himself known by working as hard as he can, and piling out as many parts as possible as soon as he hits the floor. So, he's only working for a couple hours before the foreman DOES take notice of him working so hard, and he ambles over and introduces himself, before saying "Whoah son, you're working WAY too fast. See, we've got a quota here, and if we produce over that quota, suddenly THAT's going to be the quota, and everybody's going to have to work as hard as you....and we wouldn't want that, now would we?" That kind of situation is probably the exception rather than the rule, but I do think some milder version of that kind of thinking has worked its way into a lot of the larger, modern American workplaces.


This. In my experience, working hard means the other workers pile more work on you as they do less. And if you do angle it into more pay, it is just a matter of time before some spread-sheet watcher in the corporate office lays you off, because they care little about your production and will want to get rid of your higher salary.

[mckerney]

Every time I see the title of this thread I think it's about sealing the deal with the hot hostess at a restaurant after going out to eat.

[Suburban Rhythm]

They really haven't changed or come up with any new products in quite awhile. Not totally shocking really. They should have bagged Suzy-Qs and Cupcakes. Maybe gotten a couple really good variations of hohos, dingdongs and twinkies.

So instead of the hard chocolate outside they could have used orange or cherry too. A different kind of cake make too. Like cherry with chocolate filling.

I think they DID try to make them healthier at one point but I've heard the lite twinkies weren't as tasty.

It's just not a good market anymore in this semi health conscious world.

I never understood how people liked these

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GPyccEbVGyo/TuDhIIzQBvI/AAAAAAAAARU/telW9YMSB_k/s400/fav1.jpg

Orange just never seemed like a good idea to me

[JonInMiddleGA]

Orange just never seemed like a good idea to me

Those are pretty much the only Hostess product I'll genuinely miss from a taste standpoint. Twinkies & Ding Dongs, that's nostalgia and history and all, but those orange cupcakes were just the thing for a c-store stop once in a while.

[finketr]

This. In my experience, working hard means the other workers pile more work on you as they do less. And if you do angle it into more pay, it is just a matter of time before some spread-sheet watcher in the corporate office lays you off, because they care little about your production and will want to get rid of your higher salary.

Whilst the first part of your experience seems plausible. When it comes time to determine who to layoff, my experience has been the opposite. The first time it was last-in/first-out (my bad on that job). The second time, it was a who do we need to keep, who can go. There were people at all levels that got laid-off permanently at that point regardless of salary..

well, except for the contractor/consultants that weren't employees, they all got the axe as they were built-in to the cost-control plan from the get-go.

[IlliniCub]

I just went on an all day quest for twinkies to re-sell and came up empty sadly

[thesloppy]

Sadly, I think I'll miss the brand Hostess more than any of the actual products. I like the idea of a Twinkie/Ding Dong/Ho Ho, and I think they should always be available, I just don't want to eat any of them. Shortening/creme-filling skeevs me out.

[JPhillips]

Certainly nobody has products that sound as filthy.

[McLovin]

E-Bay has a 10ct of Twinkies for a current bid 0f $31 -28 min left

10 ct Twinkies just ended for $106

[Suburban Rhythm]

Every time I open this thread I keep thinking -

Yo, Ding Dong man...Ding Dong...Ding Dong, yo!"


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t2mU6USTBRE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[chinaski]

Not sure why people dont understand this hype is all a ploy too up the sale value of the company. Hostess isnt going anywhere... they'll sell the company and we'll all have our precious twinkies for another hundred years.

[rjolley]

Loved the orange cupcakes and Suzy-Qs when I was younger. Hated when they changed the recipe for them. Haven't had one in years.

[DaddyTorgo]

Following up on something I said earlier in the thread

Don't Worry, Hostess' Top Executives Still Got Richer As Company Collapsed (http://gawker.com/5961444/dont-worry-hostess-top-executives-still-got-richer-as-company-collapsed)

[JPhillips]

That just means they'll be even better job creators!

[molson]

If Hostess failed because its CEO's salary was too high, and if they would have survived if only they didn't give those raises, then fantastic, the market worked, and other companies better learn from those mistakes or they risk the same fate.

Usually though, CEO salaries are brought up in a different context, where it's wrong that they make so much even if the company is successful, and that the board of directors should more evenly distribute the company revenue strictly out of generosity. (and I'm sure some boards, and some individuals, are in fact very generous in that way) But still, the criticism that they should be more generous is kind of interesting because usually the line is that economies can't rely too much on generosity, but that we have to rely on the government to legalize what constitutes "good" and "bad" economic behavior.

[cuervo72]

Beginning to wonder (or just even bother thinking about) the merit of publicly-held companies vs privately-held ones. In the latter, it seems you might have parties that are more interested in the actual well-being of the company, rather than just looking to make a buck. *shurg*

[Blackadar]

If Hostess failed because its CEO's salary was too high, and if they would have survived if only they didn't give those raises, then fantastic, the market worked, and other companies better learn from those mistakes or they risk the same fate.

It's indicative of the kind of money the hedge fund managers have been sucking out of the company the last few years. So the employees saw huge bonuses paid to management, money sucked out and then were asked to take another pay cut. Can't blame them for saying "fuck you".

[TroyF]

It's indicative of the kind of money the hedge fund managers have been sucking out of the company the last few years. So the employees saw huge bonuses paid to management, money sucked out and then were asked to take another pay cut. Can't blame them for saying "fuck you".

I don't blame anyone for making the choices they make. Clearly, the execs at Hostess were scumbags. When your company has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and is hanging by the balance, you don't give yourself massive raises and look in the mirror at night and see a good person. You just don't.

On the other side, I do question the choices the bakers union made. Here is the problem. . . we all agree they have taken massive cuts over the last few years and the board was run by a bunch of scumbags, right?

So I have to ask the question. . . armed with this knowledge, why were the bakers still there? Because they can't find better jobs. If they could have, they would have been gone a long time ago. So you vote to strike when the company has said they will close their doors if you do go on strike. Now what?

Unemployment for 12 to 18 months? Then what? If it's me in this situation, I'm going to vote to continue, then look for employment elsewhere or try to improve my station somehow. (by learning another trade on the side, going to night school, getting a second job in hopes that would turn into something, etc.

Saying "F you" is perfectly fine, but what do YOU get out of it? Great, they "won" By winning they now get no money (outside of unemployment short term), they get no benefits (as opposed to crappy benefits, wait until they see what Cobra costs), they still can't get a better job and the execs are going to get rich selling off the brand.

I feel for all of these people, but I really do think their decision was short sighted and that many of the 18,500 are going to be far more hurt by their actions than accepting another crappy contract. Just my two cents.

[larrymcg421]

If Hostess failed because its CEO's salary was too high, and if they would have survived if only they didn't give those raises, then fantastic, the market worked, and other companies better learn from those mistakes or they risk the same fate.

Usually though, CEO salaries are brought up in a different context, where it's wrong that they make so much even if the company is successful, and that the board of directors should more evenly distribute the company revenue strictly out of generosity. (and I'm sure some boards, and some individuals, are in fact very generous in that way) But still, the criticism that they should be more generous is kind of interesting because usually the line is that economies can't rely too much on generosity, but that we have to rely on the government to legalize what constitutes "good" and "bad" economic behavior.

The problem isn't that the CEO's getting massive raises caused the company to fail, it's that they were taking raises while the company was failing and constantly asking the workers to accept concessions.

I don't necessarily agree with your premise here. I don't think people would care how much a CEO made for a company that treats it's workers well with good pay and good benefits. The only time I ever hear CEO salaries brought up are when the company is doing the exact opposite or they've received bailout money.

[kcchief19]

Hostess' problems go well beyond a stubborn union, high-paid management and venture capitalists. The company has been in and out of bankruptcy for almost 10 years, caused primarily by heavy debt acquired during their '90s buying spree when they picked up Wonder Bread and a whole bunch else.

Hostess was in a death spiral with no hope of pulling out. The only real option was liquidation. The brand is too powerful and strong for someone not to pick up the dead carcass and make it work. I find it hard to blame the union. Jobs were going away one or another. The union didn't mismanage the company, management did.

Forcing liquidation just means you can blame them for the shutdown rather than management when at some point in the next couple of years they couldn't meet payroll or pay their suppliers.

[kcchief19]

Unemployment for 12 to 18 months? Then what? If it's me in this situation, I'm going to vote to continue, then look for employment elsewhere or try to improve my station somehow. (by learning another trade on the side, going to night school, getting a second job in hopes that would turn into something, etc.

I could be proven wrong but I think most of those workers will be back sooner than later. Someone is buying the assets and will hire back many of the workers.

[BillJasper]

Hostess' problems go well beyond a stubborn union, high-paid management and venture capitalists. The company has been in and out of bankruptcy for almost 10 years, caused primarily by heavy debt acquired during their '90s buying spree when they picked up Wonder Bread and how bunch else.

Hostess was in a death spiral with no hope of pulling out. The only real option was liquidation. The brand is too powerful and strong for someone not to pick up the dead carcass and make it work. I find it hard to blame the union. Jobs were going away one or another. The union didn't mismanage the company, management did.

Forcing liquidation just means you can blame them for the shutdown rather than management when at some point in the next couple of years they couldn't meet payroll or pay their suppliers.

Shouldn't management have sold off some of these assets that didn't fit and tried to refocus the company on its core products then? Instead they used it as a personal piggy bank until it was used up and will now sell off the carcass.

[TroyF]

I could be proven wrong but I think most of those workers will be back sooner than later. Someone is buying the assets and will hire back many of the workers.

The industry is overloaded with bakers right now. Everything I have read says that even when the assets are sold, very few of the bakers will get their jobs back.

If those projections are proven wrong and they do get their jobs back, they made the right call. We'll see how it plays out over the next bit.

[kcchief19]

The industry is overloaded with bakers right now. Everything I have read says that even when the assets are sold, very few of the bakers will get their jobs back.

If those projections are proven wrong and they do get their jobs back, they made the right call. We'll see how it plays out over the next bit.
Certainly overloaded -- that was a big reason for Hostess' downfall. They developed a ton of debt at a time when the baked goods market was declining. However, if you buy Hostess you're going to start making Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonderbread. You're not going to retool your own facilities to make those, you're probably going to fire up the facilities you just bought for a song. There is no capacity in place to make Hostess' core products.

Hostess had already halved their employees over the last decade, so those 18,000 workers are the bare bones to make Hostess products. It's tougher for the 18,000 workers who lost their jobs over the last 10 years due to the company's downfall.

Right or wrong, the union was acting in the best interest of the overall union, which is to have the highest number of jobs at the highest wage possible. Maybe they were willing to sacrifice 18,000 jobs so every other union member wouldn't have their wages devalued by a bad deal at Hostess. Maybe they figure that 15,000 good paying jobs are better for the union than 18,000 lower paying jobs.

The union is acting in the collective interest of all members, not necessarily the best interest of an individual member.

[kcchief19]

Shouldn't management have sold off some of these assets that didn't fit and tried to refocus the company on its core products then? Instead they used it as a personal piggy bank until it was used up and will now sell off the carcass.
They couldn't due to the bankruptcy. The carried more debt than their assets were worth, and no one wanted to buy Hostess and assume the debt. Now that the bankruptcy court has little choice but to liquidate the company, there will be plenty of buyers who want the assets but not the debt.

[BillJasper]

They couldn't due to the bankruptcy. The carried more debt than their assets were worth, and no one wanted to buy Hostess and assume the debt. Now that the bankruptcy court has little choice but to liquidate the company, there will be plenty of buyers who want the assets but not the debt.

They couldn't ask the court for permission to sell of the pieces of the company that no longer fit? I know I've seen companies sell off assets before while going through bankruptcy. But then I'm not in that line of work, so I just know what I see on TV. :lol:

[kcchief19]

They couldn't ask the court for permission to sell of the pieces of the company that no longer fit? I know I've seen companies sell off assets before while going through bankruptcy. But then I'm not in that line of work, so I just know what I see on TV. :lol:
They can if the bankruptcy court, the debt holders and the owners agree. The debt holders didn't want to liquidate because they could never recoup their losses through liquidation. The bankruptcy court didn't want to liquidate because it would make it impossible for Hostess to repay its debt if it took away its cash cows. As Hostess tried to crawl out of its previous bankruptcy, it gave away equity in the company. There are multiple owners, multiple creditors and a big giant mess.

It's pretty much just like Chrysler. The mess Hostess is going through is similar to what Chrysler would have gone through had the government not stepped in. Except no one even wanted Chrysler's assets, and the disappearance of Hostess wouldn't bring down the entire bakery industry supply chain.

[Galaxy]

I don't blame anyone for making the choices they make. Clearly, the execs at Hostess were scumbags. When your company has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and is hanging by the balance, you don't give yourself massive raises and look in the mirror at night and see a good person. You just don't.

On the other side, I do question the choices the bakers union made. Here is the problem. . . we all agree they have taken massive cuts over the last few years and the board was run by a bunch of scumbags, right?

So I have to ask the question. . . armed with this knowledge, why were the bakers still there? Because they can't find better jobs. If they could have, they would have been gone a long time ago. So you vote to strike when the company has said they will close their doors if you do go on strike. Now what?

Unemployment for 12 to 18 months? Then what? If it's me in this situation, I'm going to vote to continue, then look for employment elsewhere or try to improve my station somehow. (by learning another trade on the side, going to night school, getting a second job in hopes that would turn into something, etc.

Saying "F you" is perfectly fine, but what do YOU get out of it? Great, they "won" By winning they now get no money (outside of unemployment short term), they get no benefits (as opposed to crappy benefits, wait until they see what Cobra costs), they still can't get a better job and the execs are going to get rich selling off the brand.

I feel for all of these people, but I really do think their decision was short sighted and that many of the 18,500 are going to be far more hurt by their actions than accepting another crappy contract. Just my two cents.

From what I've read, the employees that went on strike will not be eligible for unemployment.

I could be proven wrong but I think most of those workers will be back sooner than later. Someone is buying the assets and will hire back many of the workers.

I disagree. They will not hire these workers back unless it's on their terms, and likely in right-to-work states (if not in Mexico).

[kcchief19]

I disagree. They will not hire these workers back unless it's on their terms, and likely in right-to-work states (if not in Mexico).
That's not workable for baked goods. I don't think the margins support having a centralized facility and delivering nationwide. Hostess had 33 factories nationwide. If you buy Hostess in liquidation with the factories, why would you spend the money to retool or build a new factory somewhere else when you have an existing factories and an experienced workforce in place?

Remember, the wages at Hostess were not out of line with the marketplace ... Hostess simply couldn't afford to pay a market wage for bakers since it was paying down a few billion dollars in debt and had a venture capital investor pulling profits out too. No reason not to fire those factories back up.

I'm assuming that a buyer may not bring back all 18,000 because someone will find other jobs and the owner may not want to continue making some products if it overlaps with an existing product.

You also have to consider than a buyer may want to grab Hostess because they have factories where the buyer doesn't currently have a footprint. And the answer to the inevitable question is that the reason they didn't buy Hostess before is the debt. Better to wait for Hostess to be liquidated debt free than be force to buy part or all of the company and swallow the debt.

[JonInMiddleGA]

why would you spend the money to retool or build a new factory somewhere else when you have an existing factories and an experienced workforce in place?

The expectations, based on what I've read, are that the buyers will largely integrate the products into their existing operations/manufacturing chain. I think we have to keep in mind that while Twinkies etc were what most people associate with the company, they were the 2nd largest bread makers in the nation as well. Those products certainly seem likely to be made elsewhere.

The typical phrase seems to be "a few" of the Hostess bakeries "may" eventually reopen.

[Galaxy]

That's not workable for baked goods. I don't think the margins support having a centralized facility and delivering nationwide. Hostess had 33 factories nationwide. If you buy Hostess in liquidation with the factories, why would you spend the money to retool or build a new factory somewhere else when you have an existing factories and an experienced workforce in place?

Remember, the wages at Hostess were not out of line with the marketplace ... Hostess simply couldn't afford to pay a market wage for bakers since it was paying down a few billion dollars in debt and had a venture capital investor pulling profits out too. No reason not to fire those factories back up.

I'm assuming that a buyer may not bring back all 18,000 because someone will find other jobs and the owner may not want to continue making some products if it overlaps with an existing product.

You also have to consider than a buyer may want to grab Hostess because they have factories where the buyer doesn't currently have a footprint. And the answer to the inevitable question is that the reason they didn't buy Hostess before is the debt. Better to wait for Hostess to be liquidated debt free than be force to buy part or all of the company and swallow the debt.

Jon answered it for me. They will be buying the assets for the brand and product lines, not the factories (if they're included in the sale, not sure if they'll sell the company as a whole or if they'll sell everything piece-by-piece). If a company that buys it and has existing factories that offer lower operating costs, you can be certain they'll produce the products in their own factories.

[Blackadar]

There is a suitor for the business!

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/19/hostess-sun-buyout/?hpt=hp_t3

I found this particularly relevant since it confirms what I've been saying since page 1 of this thread:

"I think that we could offer a slightly better, more labor-friendly deal than what was on the table last week," says Sun co-CEO Marc Leder, in an interview with Fortune. "We also think that one point the unions have made is that there hasn't been a great amount of reinvestment in the business. We've found that investing new capital into companies like this can be very positive for brand, people and profitability... We would look to invest in newer, more modern, manufacturing assets that would enable the company to become more productive and to innovate."

[molson]

I can't wait to see what kind of "innovations" are in store for the processed snack food industry. I bet bacon is involved somehow.

[BillJasper]

There is a suitor for the business!

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/11/19/hostess-sun-buyout/?hpt=hp_t3

I found this particularly relevant since it confirms what I've been saying since page 1 of this thread:

But, is it innovations that can be incorporated into the current facilities or is this innovation that'll take place in Mexico? :lol:

EDIT: Hopefully it doesn't fall through.

[molson]

The bankruptcy court is going to make the company mediate with the union before they can liquidate.

Judge asks Hostess to mediate with union - Business - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/business/news/2012/11/19/judge-orders-hostess-mediate-with-union/SzDhwEZx5nYnSaW1TskapI/story.html)

‘‘Many people, myself included, have serious questions as to the logic behind this strike,’’ said Judge Robert Drain, who heard the case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y. ‘‘Not to have gone through that step leaves a huge question mark in this case.’’

[Marc Vaughan]

One major things which I haven't seen mentioned here is that it appears by going bankrupt they dislocate the pension schemes which they were on the hook for ... which are shifted to the responsibility of the government/funded by the tax-payer.

The deficit for such pensions is apparently $34bn per year at present .... to me this seems wholly unethical and is simply a 'dodge' to avoid obligations a company has already undertaken (ie. to the pension holders).

Twinkies Defense Is Private Equity's Pension Offense: Street Whispers - TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11771361/1/twinkies-defense-is-private-equitys-pension-offense-street-whispers.html)

[DaddyTorgo]

It's indicative of the kind of money the hedge fund managers have been sucking out of the company the last few years. So the employees saw huge bonuses paid to management, money sucked out and then were asked to take another pay cut. Can't blame them for saying "fuck you".

To support what you've said

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance. "The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."
He then goes on to say the following in a blog post i just read.



A lot of people seem to think this mediation thing is a big deal. Mostly because they see an 'opportunity to save jobs'. There will be no yes vote from me if my pension is not restored. I doubt mediation will help us find new owners. It will be an attempt to find compromise with terrorists.

I think it's a big deal for a different reason. They went to their rubber stamp judge in the morning to defend asking for bonuses to close the company, on top of their normal salary. A rep from the DOJ showed up and argued against the excessive pay. I must say I was shocked. I didn't see government intervention coming. I am sure without it we would have sent bonus checks by now.

I also see mediation as proof we are winning. As our story gets out it seems to become almost impossible to defend the company. The more people know our story, the more we are winning. This has gotten out of the boards and CEO Rayburn's control. We are playing on our home court now.

I do not speak for everyone in the Union, these are my thoughts. Let me be clear, the goal isn't to compromise with terrorists. It is to be sold or be closed. We are officially fighting back. I agree with BCTGM President Frank Hurt, Wonder Bread "will be produced somewhere, some time and by our members." This would be a good place to point out that I am extremely proud of my Union and it's gutsy follow through. It takes a committed membership to hold the picket line with everything that is hanging over our heads.

[molson]

The workers have every right not to work for any salary they think is too low, but they also don't have some moral right to the same salary the always had or higher. If parties can't agree on terms there's no deal, it happens every day, it what makes the system work. I don't get the anger towards either side. Neither have an ethical obligation to continue the Hostess brand on terms that don't work for them for whatever reason - whether the reason be the economic realities of the day, they'd rather try to get a better job, they'd make more on unemployment, either side thinks the other is bluffing, etc.

[Blackadar]

The workers have every right not to work for any salary they think is too low, but they also don't have some moral right to the same salary the always had or higher. If parties can't agree on terms there's no deal, it happens every day, it what makes the system work. I don't get the anger towards either side. Neither have an ethical obligation to continue the Hostess brand on terms that don't work for them for whatever reason - whether the reason be the economic realities of the day, they'd rather try to get a better job, they'd make more on unemployment, either side thinks the other is bluffing, etc.

I'd get pretty angry too if I were publicly blamed for "destroying the company", when the facts clearly show the company was destroyed by a management group who was intent on picking the carcass clean. I'd be pretty angry if that management team was giving themselves 300% pay raises while choosing not to fund their contractually negotiated pension obligations. I'd be pretty angry with a management team who put my livelihood at risk and asked me to take another huge pay cut because they decided to pay themselves millions in bonuses.

You don't get the anger? When for chrissake *should* someone get angry if not now?

[CrimsonFox]

I heard some mexican company wants to buy it.

[CrimsonFox]

I heard some mexican company wants to buy it.


oh, that's bimbo. Man I am way behind.

[molson]

I'd get pretty angry too if I were publicly blamed for "destroying the company", when the facts clearly show the company was destroyed by a management group who was intent on picking the carcass clean. I'd be pretty angry if that management team was giving themselves 300% pay raises while choosing not to fund their contractually negotiated pension obligations. I'd be pretty angry with a management team who put my livelihood at risk and asked me to take another huge pay cut because they decided to pay themselves millions in bonuses.

You don't get the anger? When for chrissake *should* someone get angry if not now?

You're make a lot of assumptions there. OK, I'd certainly be pissed off if I were publicly blamed by "destroying the company." But, that's just speech, and I can make my own side of it public and plenty of people would agree with me too.

But you seem to suggest that this was simple as the company cutting employee salaries strictly and exclusively for the purpose of giving themselves raises. I don't think you can prove that and I don't think the numbers match up. This seems like a garbage company that can't make their shit food unless they pay their workers nothing. So, they will no longer exist. I have no problem with this.

But even if Hostess, as you seem to be implying, was a superbly run company that could afford to pay its workers more, it's hard for me to accept the idea that they're just required to pay what someone else thinks they should. This concept always annoys me in labor negotiations. It's OK for workers to ask for more but it's apparently always unethical for companies to try to get more. I've tried to wrap my head around the idea but to me I just can't get enraged over it. I guess I see both sides as just different parties in a business arrangement. I understand that others see it more as if management are this ruling class who has some obligation to take care of their "children" workers. But I think in our society the line between "labor" and "management" has blurred a bit (both in a lot of job functions, and the fact that you don't have to be born into the .01% to be "management" - a lot of managers are crappy at their jobs and get spit out by the system just like any other workers). Sure processed food baking factories I guess are one of the business arrangements that still resembles an 1870s London factory or something, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised (or sad) when that model implodes.

If the company made obviously unreasonable financial decisions and as a result, could not comply with their contractually negotiated pension obligations, that would potentially make me the most upset but I don't think you can prove that's what happened here - that if there were no salary increases for anyone in management, that all of the pension obligations would be 100% satisfied. I'm guessing it's really difficult to retain competent management at a dying company, you probably have to pay more than market value to have anyone who would give your company a chance. Maybe they paid too much, I have no idea, but I don't think those were financial obligations that on their own ruined the company, which is the assumption your entire post makes. I don't think the numbers match up. If they did, and that was clear, I believe you'd have the potential for a civil action (and if you didn't, I'd support government regulation to facilitate that...but only if it was clear fraud. Raising management salaries isn't clear fraud unless, MAYBE, the amounts of the raises would have saved the company if spent elsewhere.)

[CrimsonFox]

Usually though, CEO salaries are brought up in a different context, where it's wrong that they make so much even if the company is successful, and that the board of directors should more evenly distribute the company revenue strictly out of generosity. (

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[RainMaker]

This seems like a garbage company that can't make their shit food unless they pay their workers nothing. So, they will no longer exist. I have no problem with this.

Sure they aren't as big as they were, but it's still a company that did $2 billion in revenue. There is still demand for their products. And there are other examples of similar successful business models. I think it's silly to act like this is a company that can't possibly survive in this country.

It looks like a company that was poorly run and had incompetence at the highest levels. A smarter group of individuals will take over the name or company and likely succeed.

If the company made obviously unreasonable financial decisions and as a result, could not comply with their contractually negotiated pension obligations, that would potentially make me the most upset but I don't think you can prove that's what happened here - that if there were no salary increases for anyone in management, that all of the pension obligations would be 100% satisfied.

No one but the most connected individuals know the details of what went on there. But they did give management raises. Management that was failing miserably to keep Hostess afloat. Typically that's not a good strategy and it's fair to ask whether they are incredibly stupid or engaging in something more nefarious.

[Blackadar]

You're make a lot of assumptions there. OK, I'd certainly be pissed off if I were publicly blamed by "destroying the company." But, that's just speech, and I can make my own side of it public and plenty of people would agree with me too.

But you seem to suggest that this was simple as the company cutting employee salaries strictly and exclusively for the purpose of giving themselves raises. I don't think you can prove that and I don't think the numbers match up. This seems like a garbage company that can't make their shit food unless they pay their workers nothing. So, they will no longer exist. I have no problem with this.

But even if Hostess, as you seem to be implying, was a superbly run company that could afford to pay its workers more, it's hard for me to accept the idea that they're just required to pay what someone else thinks they should. This concept always annoys me in labor negotiations. It's OK for workers to ask for more but it's apparently always unethical for companies to try to get more. I've tried to wrap my head around the idea but to me I just can't get enraged over it. I guess I see both sides as just different parties in a business arrangement. I understand that others see it more as if management are this ruling class who has some obligation to take care of their "children" workers. But I think in our society the line between "labor" and "management" has blurred a bit (both in a lot of job functions, and the fact that you don't have to be born into the .01% to be "management" - a lot of managers are crappy at their jobs and get spit out by the system just like any other workers). Sure processed food baking factories I guess are one of the business arrangements that still resembles an 1870s London factory or something, but maybe we shouldn't be surprised (or sad) when that model implodes.

If the company made obviously unreasonable financial decisions and as a result, could not comply with their contractually negotiated pension obligations, that would potentially make me the most upset but I don't think you can prove that's what happened here - that if there were no salary increases for anyone in management, that all of the pension obligations would be 100% satisfied. I'm guessing it's really difficult to retain competent management at a dying company, you probably have to pay more than market value to have anyone who would give your company a chance. Maybe they paid too much, I have no idea, but I don't think those were financial obligations that on their own ruined the company, which is the assumption your entire post makes. I don't think the numbers match up. If they did, and that was clear, I believe you'd have the potential for a civil action (and if you didn't, I'd support government regulation to facilitate that...but only if it was clear fraud. Raising management salaries isn't clear fraud unless, MAYBE, the amounts of the raises would have saved the company if spent elsewhere.)

Actually, I made no assumptions. However, you've made a bunch of 'em in this post.

[molson]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Educate me then, what's the basis of the complaints about CEO salaries generally? The complaint is that it's greedy, isn't it?

It's totally fair to call someone out as greedy. As I think it's fair to call someone out as greedy for not giving any money to charity.

If you're saying instead that the criticisms are more business-related - that the companies could get CEOs just as good for the same or less money, that seems like more an issue for the shareholders, and something the market will either prove or disprove.

[molson]

Actually, I made no assumptions. However, you've made a bunch of 'em in this post.

That's true, I did make a couple of assumptions, but they were based on what you posted, like "I'd be pretty angry with a management team who put my livelihood at risk and asked me to take another huge pay cut because they decided to pay themselves millions in bonuses"

That sounds like you're saying the relationship between the two events was pretty direct. That BECAUSE of the raises, salaries were cut and the pensions not honored. If you're saying instead that those things have nothing to do with each other, than I REALLY don't know what you're pissed about.

[molson]

No one but the most connected individuals know the details of what went on there. But they did give management raises. Management that was failing miserably to keep Hostess afloat. Typically that's not a good strategy and it's fair to ask whether they are incredibly stupid or engaging in something more nefarious.

Sure, its fair to ask, and transparency is really important with public companies, especially when there's a bankruptcy involved. I'm all for regulation to help ensure that and transparency, and I'm especially for severe criminal penalties when laws are broken. I'm talking more here about the perceived ethical/moral obligations of the parties rather than the legal ones.

And I don't have a business degree but I'm not sure that it's never a good salary to increase management salaries (or fork out more for different managers) when your company is in the crapper. If the money issues are in the hundreds of millions, I don't think it's always necessarily the wrong move to spend a a few million to keep all of your management from bailing. I know that rubs people the wrong thing but I think these raises are pretty small in the grand scheme of the kind of business these companies can do. I have no idea if the raises were warranted here or not, but I don't think they were the thing that took down the company.

[CrimsonFox]

Educate me then, what's the basis of the complaints about CEO salaries generally? The complaint is that it's greedy, isn't it?

It's totally fair to call someone out as greedy. As I think it's fair to call someone out as greedy for not giving any money to charity.

If you're saying instead that the criticisms are more business-related - that the companies could get CEOs just as good for the same or less money, that seems like more an issue for the shareholders, and something the market will either prove or disprove.


I was just laughing at the thought of CEOs nowadays diong anything out of generosity.

[thesloppy]

But you seem to suggest that this was simple as the company cutting employee salaries strictly and exclusively for the purpose of giving themselves raises. I don't think you can prove that and I don't think the numbers match up.

I think you're getting lost down the wormhole a bit, and tying the figures of the workers/managers salaries into a bigger question than it needs to be. Although the worker's compensation is an interesting point to argue, I think we can remove them from the equation entirely, before asking why management was giving themselves massive raises for driving a globally recognized brand into bankruptcy.

Regardless of what moral and financial questions lie behind the generalities driving the economic factors that decide the widening discrepancy between management and labor's wages, this particular management team didn't just give themselves pay raises, they gave themselves massive wage raises for catastrophically bad performance. To ignore that crucial fact, while continuing to question whether workers deserve to even ask for any kind of raise on moral or ethical grounds, sounds ridiculous.

[molson]

I was just laughing at the thought of CEOs nowadays diong anything out of generosity.

I think there's some great CEOs in this country that are very generous in their personal lives. In business context it gets a little trickier, they're running a company, they don't own it, and they don't own the assets or have the authority to give them away out of the goodness of their hearts. The bad ones have certainly killed the reputation of the group as a whole though.

[CrimsonFox]

I actually think it is a mistake to think that a CEO giving back to the company and its workers is a thing of "generosity". It is not. It is a NECESSITY to put back into the business and its people as a way of making a successful business. As we see by hostess being such a clusterfuck.

[molson]

To ignore that crucial fact, while continuing to question whether workers deserve to even ask for any kind of raise on moral or ethical grounds, sounds ridiculous.

I absolutely don't question whether the workers deserve to ask for anything, of course they can ask for anything they want. I disagree with the reverse. I disagree with the idea that it's necessarily unethical for the owners of a company or management to try get a better deal, but OK for workers to try to get a better deal. I think it's OK for both to do so (as long as there's no fraud.)

[larrymcg421]

If I was asked to take concessions to almost half of my original pay and get worse benefits, while the management was giving themselves huge raises, I'd be pretty fucking angry. I wouldn't care whether those raises were the direct reason why I had to make the concessions. I really don't understand anyone who wouldn't angry in this scenario.

[Aylmar]

If I was asked to take concessions to almost half of my original pay and get worse benefits, while the management was giving themselves huge raises, I'd be pretty fucking angry. I wouldn't care whether those raises were the direct reason why I had to make the concessions. I really don't understand anyone who wouldn't angry in this scenario.

I wouldn't be angry...I'd be looking for other work. Immediately.

[molson]

I actually think it is a mistake to think that a CEO giving back to the company and its workers is a thing of "generosity". It is not. It is a NECESSITY to put back into the business and its people as a way of making a successful business. As we see by hostess being such a clusterfuck.

Agreed. If Hostess screwed themselves by hiring terrible management and then by paying them more to stay, then they deserve to fail.

I'm not debating blame. I don't see it as a blame thing, at least from an outside perspective. To the extent this result is bad for management, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. It's beyond silly for them to "blame" workers, nobody's ethically required to work in factories for a certain amount of money, that's just stupid. If a worker really really wanted to keep working at Hostess for less money, then they can blame the union. But otherwise, they just probably made the right choice for themselves given the circumstances, no blame needed.

[RainMaker]

And I don't have a business degree but I'm not sure that it's never a good salary to increase management salaries (or fork out more for different managers) when your company is in the crapper. If the money issues are in the hundreds of millions, I don't think it's always necessarily the wrong move to spend a a few million to keep all of your management from bailing. I know that rubs people the wrong thing but I think these raises are pretty small in the grand scheme of the kind of business these companies can do. I have no idea if the raises were warranted here or not, but I don't think they were the thing that took down the company.

If you're hundreds of millions in the crapper, why would you even want to keep them, let alone give them raises? Smart businesses fire or demote those who fail.

[thesloppy]

If I was asked to take concessions to almost half of my original pay and get worse benefits, while the management was giving themselves huge raises, I'd be pretty fucking angry. I wouldn't care whether those raises were the direct reason why I had to make the concessions. I really don't understand anyone who wouldn't angry in this scenario.

Even if the worker's poor raises aren't a direct result of the upper management's wages, they are most certainly a direct result of the upper management's performance/decisions. Whether you want to draw the line from the worker's wages to the management's wages or the management's decisions, does it really matter? One way or another, the workers were being asked to take massive paycuts for management, while the management got massive raises for running a global brand into dust.

[molson]

If you're hundreds of millions in the crapper, why would you even want to keep them, let alone give them raises? Smart businesses fire or demote those who fail.

Only when it's not their fault. Maybe there's a new competitor, or a recession, or a societal change that impacts the popularity of your product. If it's clearly their fault (which it probably is most times), than ya. But I think cutting salaries of your management positions across-the-board in tough times could just accelerate your death.

And are we even sure there's been zero management turnover in Hostess over this period of decline? People in management do get fired all the time for poor performance. We don't hear about it as much because the only time the inner workings of a company are in the news, its because the company has crapped the bed. It creates the illusion that once you're "management" you're set for life and are free to steal from workers.

[thesloppy]

I absolutely don't question whether the workers deserve to ask for anything, of course they can ask for anything they want. I disagree with the reverse. I disagree with the idea that it's necessarily unethical for the owners of a company or management to try get a better deal, but OK for workers to try to get a better deal. I think it's OK for both to do so (as long as there's no fraud.)

Well, in general I don't disagree with you, I just think this is probably a bad place to make that argument in general, as the specific management in this case obviously didn't deserve their massive raises.

[CrimsonFox]

I really don't care if hostess never sells another twinkie really. I haven't eaten the vile things in like 20 years. Maybe they should replace it with something more people want to buy. In addition to the mismanagement, obviously the trend of eating healthier has hurt this business when all they sell is junk.

And it is funny. NOw that they closed I'm craving zingers. Again I haven't eaten these things in decades. Why do I suddenly want one? :)

[PilotMan]

I wouldn't be angry...I'd be looking for other work. Immediately.

It's such an easy answer but not all careers are made so easily. The person faced with such a choice has many more things to consider than just the quality of their management. A worker should want to support the company and the management they work for, not worry about being totally fucked by them.

[molson]

Well, in general I don't disagree with you, I just think this is probably a bad place to make that argument in general, as the specific management in this case obviously didn't deserve their massive raises.

Ya, that's probably true, I'm being too general here with my labor/management perception pet peeves. I don't know anything about Hostess's specific situation. It appears they were terrible. I just don't totally get the heartburn/blame over the raises part of it, that's such a minor thing to me in the bigger picture. I think they destroyed the company through business incompetence. And if they did anything illegal to destroy the company or profit from its destruction, I hope they get locked up. But my hunch is (ya, a hunch, no data), is that this brand just didn't evolve and was therefore doomed. Is anyone surprised Hostess failed in 2012? Except that it took so long?

[PilotMan]

Molson, I admire you persistence in this fight, and I appreciate your viewpoint. However, your view is a fairly recent evolution in US business ethics and practices. Up until the last 30 years or so, the idea was that the management and the labor were in the same pool and that companies were built from the inside out, not from the top down.

[RainMaker]

Ya, that's probably true, I'm being too general here with my labor/management perception pet peeves. I don't know anything about Hostess's specific situation. It appears they were terrible. I just don't totally get the heartburn/blame over the raises part of it. I think they destroyed the company through business incompetence.

I think it has to do with their incompetence costing 18,000 people jobs. That's a part of life and business obviously, but I think it got ramped up when they essentially blamed workers for not taking huge cuts as the reason the business failed. I don't think there would be as much backlash if they just closed down without taking shots at employees.

[molson]

If I was asked to take concessions to almost half of my original pay and get worse benefits, while the management was giving themselves huge raises, I'd be pretty fucking angry. I wouldn't care whether those raises were the direct reason why I had to make the concessions. I really don't understand anyone who wouldn't angry in this scenario.

If they're acting lawfully, management can't give themselves raises (unless its a private company and the management and the ownership is the same.) If they're not acting lawfully, we definitely need to do a better job in the criminal enforcement end of this. I'm all for that - I think the government has done a better job of going after corporate criminals but there's a lot more room for improvement still. It'd also be a nice little boost to the legal job market for prosecutors and investigators to go all in on this.

[sterlingice]

Every time I open this thread I keep thinking -

Yo, Ding Dong man...Ding Dong...Ding Dong, yo!"


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t2mU6USTBRE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

My favorite Weird Al video. I love the intro, especially

SI

[PilotMan]

If they're acting lawfully, management can't give themselves raises (unless its a private company and the management and the ownership is the same.) If they're not acting lawfully, we definitely need to do a better job in the criminal enforcement end of this. I'm all for that - severe crackdowns on corporate crimes.

But that's just it. It's all done legally, but not ethically. Before Delta and Northwest filed for bankruptcy on the same day, then ended up merging, the Delta management legally gave themselves 5 million dollar golden parachute retirement plans that were totally protected from the bankruptcy. The employees were never in a position to do the same thing, and were forced to concede millions and lost the vast majority of their retirement themselves. Hell, the amount of concessions my small company made, that would supposedly make us competitive wasn't even close to the amount of guaranteed money that the upper management made off with. And it was all legal.

[RainMaker]

If they're acting lawfully, management can't give themselves raises (unless its a private company and the management and the ownership is the same.) If they're not acting lawfully, we definitely need to do a better job in the criminal enforcement end of this. I'm all for that - I think the government has done a better job of going after corporate criminals but there's a lot more room for improvement still. It'd also be a nice little boost to the legal job market for prosecutors and investigators to go all in on this.

I don't think anyone is arguing the legality of anything. I think people are just saying those people are morally bankrupt human beings.

[molson]

But that's just it. It's all done legally, but not ethically. Before Delta and Northwest filed for bankruptcy on the same day, then ended up merging, the Delta management legally gave themselves 5 million dollar golden parachute retirement plans that were totally protected from the bankruptcy. The employees were never in a position to do the same thing, and were forced to concede millions and lost the vast majority of their retirement themselves. Hell, the amount of concessions my small company made, that would supposedly make us competitive wasn't even close to the amount of guaranteed money that the upper management made off with. And it was all legal.

I think the better argument is that practices like that should be illegal, rather than that they just shouldn't do it for ethical reasons.

Like I was saying, ethics in business is tricky. Because ethics are an individual thing. Corporations have no morals, good or bad. The public can punish them economically for perceived "immoral" conduct, but at the end of the day, the corporation, as an entity, only reacts to that kind of thing for business reasons.

I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize individuals who work for corporations who act unethically, when that conduct can be isolated. But when we're evaluating the activities of broader "management" or "corporations", ethics are less and less useful as a tool for evaluation, I think. One guy in one of those broader groups doesn't necessarily have the legal and contractual authority to act in the way we'd like companies and management to act as whole. That's why laws are so important. Unfortunately, we can't rely on "management" or "corporations" to act, as entities, in ethically responsible ways.

[RainMaker]

The only law I think that could be made is that you can't run up your executive salaries right before you file bankruptcy. Sort of like how it's illegal to run up your credit cards with luxury items 90 days before filing personal bankruptcy.

Top executives who knew of the situation and yet still raised salaries should be responsible for paying those expenses out of their pockets toward the creditors.

[Blackadar]

Ya, that's probably true, I'm being too general here with my labor/management perception pet peeves. I don't know anything about Hostess's specific situation. It appears they were terrible. I just don't totally get the heartburn/blame over the raises part of it, that's such a minor thing to me in the bigger picture. I think they destroyed the company through business incompetence. And if they did anything illegal to destroy the company or profit from its destruction, I hope they get locked up. But my hunch is (ya, a hunch, no data), is that this brand just didn't evolve and was therefore doomed. Is anyone surprised Hostess failed in 2012? Except that it took so long?

The raises are minor - they're just indicative of the gross mismanagement of the company.

The thing that set me off on Page 1 was the whole "unions destroyed us" rhetoric that was spoon fed to the media. That's what everyone grabbed on to. I heard the whole anti-union shit in SPADES around my right-wing office that day. It's an outright lie that's so intellectually dishonest I'd love to see management get sued for slander for that kind of this (though the unions would lose in court due to the narrow definition of slander). But that's all that 90% of the people who heard about this story will every know - "unions destroyed the twinkie". It's untrue, unfair and someone should get beaten in a dark alley for that kind of lie.

As for your last statement, Hostess shouldn't have failed. Did Hershey or Mars go bankrupt? Little Debbie? McKee Foods? Pepsico? Frito Lay? There's plenty of room in the market for sweet snacks. Hostess *should* dominate the market - it's what many of us grew up with in our lunchboxes. We should be putting it in our kid's lunchboxes. Yet we don't because the product quality isn't great, the prices are too high and their visibility in the supermarket has declined. The Hostess brand can be more than viable again with some decent management.

[Blackadar]

Corporations have no morals, good or bad.

Hence the reason that making corporations "people" was a monumental mistake by the Supreme Court.

[molson]

Hence the reason that making corporations "people" was a monumental mistake by the Supreme Court.

Ya, I tend to agree with that, at least when they're acting within the legal invention that is a corporation. (though that would require legislative action to ensure corporations have free speech, and are not subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, but that's a whole other thing, and I agree with the spirit of what you're saying). I'm not as sure when it comes to non-profits, but I know there's an incorporation process there too.

[CrimsonFox]

My favorite Weird Al video. I love the intro, especially

SI



LOL! Yeah that is one of my favorite lines ever! HAHA

Yo Ding Dong man, Ding Dong. Ding Dong yo!

[sterlingice]

LOL! Yeah that is one of my favorite lines ever! HAHA

Yo Ding Dong man, Ding Dong. Ding Dong yo!

I love the nervous but mostly nonchalant "Oh you know, around" followed by more and more agitation until it erupts into "You ain't fat. YOU AIN'T NOTHING!"

SI

[CrimsonFox]

I love the nervous but mostly nonchalant "Oh you know, around" followed by more and more agitation until it erupts into "You ain't fat. YOU AIN'T NOTHING!"

SI


the bad acting is what sells it (and pulling a piece of pizze from his pocket)

[DaddyTorgo]

I think the better argument is that practices like that should be illegal, rather than that they just shouldn't do it for ethical reasons.

Like I was saying, ethics in business is tricky. Because ethics are an individual thing. Corporations have no morals, good or bad. The public can punish them economically for perceived "immoral" conduct, but at the end of the day, the corporation, as an entity, only reacts to that kind of thing for business reasons.

I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize individuals who work for corporations who act unethically, when that conduct can be isolated. But when we're evaluating the activities of broader "management" or "corporations", ethics are less and less useful as a tool for evaluation, I think. One guy in one of those broader groups doesn't necessarily have the legal and contractual authority to act in the way we'd like companies and management to act as whole. That's why laws are so important. Unfortunately, we can't rely on "management" or "corporations" to act, as entities, in ethically responsible ways.

Who's going to write those laws into practice though man? It's all well and good to say they should be illegal, but the CEO's are the ones who can afford to fund the campaigns of the lawmakers and hobnob with them - they'll make sure that kind of stuff is never wrtten into law.

You can't just wash your hands of it by saying it should be written into law when that's not realitically going to happen.

[molson]

Who's going to write those laws into practice though man? It's all well and good to say they should be illegal, but the CEO's are the ones who can afford to fund the campaigns of the lawmakers and hobnob with them - they'll make sure that kind of stuff is never wrtten into law.

You can't just wash your hands of it by saying it should be written into law when that's not realitically going to happen.

That's true, the general public has a ton of power in a free economy too, if they refused to buy products from companies whose CEO's salaries were deemed to be too high, that would have a big impact. The general public could frame the reason for that stance as "ethics", and even though I don't think it's a ethics issue, it doesn't really matter how they frame it, if they did it, it would make a difference. We might have better luck with laws and enforcement of them though. I think there's already been progress there.

[PilotMan]

That's true, the general public has a ton of power in a free economy too, if they refused to buy products from companies whose CEO's salaries were deemed to be too high, that would have a big impact. The general public could frame the reason for that stance as "ethics", and even though I don't think it's a ethics issue, it doesn't really matter how they frame it, if they did it, it would make a difference. We might have better luck with laws and enforcement of them though. I think there's already been progress there.

I enter as exhibit "A"; Walmart.


---Price will always be the bottom line with the public. And I'm right there, hell, I own stock in the damn company. I still prefer Target though.

[SteveMax58]

Who's going to write those laws into practice though man? It's all well and good to say they should be illegal, but the CEO's are the ones who can afford to fund the campaigns of the lawmakers and hobnob with them - they'll make sure that kind of stuff is never wrtten into law.

You can't just wash your hands of it by saying it should be written into law when that's not realitically going to happen.

I think the first step to anything like this is having a publicly organized thinktank that can put forth parameters around a tiered classification system of company performance/exec compensation/manager compensation/worker compensation. Not unlike a "green" rating...the system would attempt to identify & link "reasonable" executive compensation, relative to company performance metrics, and contrast that to worker compensation (adjusted for the perceived skillsets needed to perform job functions).

In all likelihood...such a thinktank would be a liberal thinktank (whether perceived or reality) but the key here is to start with voluntary adoption. Mainly small companies would adopt this initially (especially those looking to attract a certain type of worker with a certain type of skillset) but there is a point where it could hit critical mass & gain acceptance to the point of becoming law. Or in lieu of "law", could be used as the basis for tax breaks & public benefits...i.e. you fit this criteria, you gain "too big to fail" status as you qualify as a company "looking out for its workers".

While I tend to fall on the "let the market decide" crowd...I can speak firsthand at the ease of which a former CEO of mine was able to essentially loot the company. And I can tell you that as much as we'd like to think other executives would notice this & take action...they simply won't (especially if the CEO/CFO are smart enough to include them in the looting).

A classification system (if adopted) would effectively serve as the market balance to those with the power to control compensation & be (properly) accountable to the general public.

[JPhillips]

You could do greater transparency and a real say by shareholders easily if there was political will. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a good start.

It might be possible to divorce compensation decisions entirely from the management and stop cross pollination of corporate boards, but I'm not sure if that is really feasible.

[SteveMax58]

You could do greater transparency and a real say by shareholders easily if there was political will. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would be a good start.

It might be possible to divorce compensation decisions entirely from the management and stop cross pollination of corporate boards, but I'm not sure if that is really feasible.

Yeah, I agree with the end result of eliminating the "exec network" that keeps itself safe via the boards but I dont think you get there by waiting for the government alone to do it. Who would even propose it today aside from Sanders & a few others?

The very people who are elected to government positions want to have "job security" themselves after their public service is done. So they have a natural incentive to play ball & feed the corporate network (if we assume no worse motivation such as direct bribery) with executives at corporations as they are their future employers. Lets face it...you dont go from being a congressman to working in a hostess bakery. Hence why there is such disparity in definition of "the people" that they are serving.

I don't mean to suggest shaming alone will unravel anything there. But we cannot expect the very people who benefit from corruption to initiate it's demise. It has to start with a bipartisan (to the extent possible) group of economists & business people that have give a crap about people that cannot afford to live in their neighborhood. But it has to be serious people with legitimate credentials who can get the attention of the Buffets, Gates, Bransens of the world with their name attached to it (or summation of names at the least).

[Abe Sargent]

A large truck came into teh Hostess store today and people were grabbing boxes and crates of snak cakes, unloading them into their carts en massee, and buying hundreds of items in one purchase. It was crazy.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I agree with the end result of eliminating the "exec network" that keeps itself safe via the boards but I dont think you get there by waiting for the government alone to do it. Who would even propose it today aside from Sanders & a few others?

The very people who are elected to government positions want to have "job security" themselves after their public service is done. So they have a natural incentive to play ball & feed the corporate network (if we assume no worse motivation such as direct bribery) with executives at corporations as they are their future employers. Lets face it...you dont go from being a congressman to working in a hostess bakery. Hence why there is such disparity in definition of "the people" that they are serving.

I don't mean to suggest shaming alone will unravel anything there. But we cannot expect the very people who benefit from corruption to initiate it's demise. It has to start with a bipartisan (to the extent possible) group of economists & business people that have give a crap about people that cannot afford to live in their neighborhood. But it has to be serious people with legitimate credentials who can get the attention of the Buffets, Gates, Bransens of the world with their name attached to it (or summation of names at the least).

I definitely agree with shaming. Part of the solution is encouraging a very public exposure of corporate heads that are looting their companies. I like the idea of an almost Better Business Bureau approach for compensation issues.

[CrimsonFox]

Hostess Chapter 11 trustee sought by Bakery Workers&#x2019; union - KansasCity.com (http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/27/3936859/hostess-chapter-11-trustee-sought.html)

[Galaxy]

Hence the reason that making corporations "people" was a monumental mistake by the Supreme Court.

This never bother me, as long as unions and religious organizations have the same rights that the corporations got. I would like to see a outlaw ban on it all, however.

[Jacob Typer]

I already miss mytwinie


:(

[Young Drachma]

Hostess wins OK to give execs up to $1.75 million in bonuses - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hostess-20121130,0,1027676.story)

Hostess Brands Inc., in the midst of winding down its business, won approval Thursday from a federal bankruptcy judge to give as much as $1.75 million in bonuses to its executives.

The money is intended as an incentive for 19 top-level managers to remain with the Twinkies and Ding Dongs maker to oversee its liquidation.

The payouts will be granted only if managers "achieve a set of specific tasks and goals within a specified time frame that are designed to speed and lower the cost of the wind-down," Hostess spokesman Lance Ignon said.

The maximum bonus amount, Ignon said, represents 0.07% of Hostess' revenue and 0.17% of the value of its assets and is below the average for bonuses in comparable bankruptcy cases. Hostess Chief Executive Greg Rayburn would be not be eligible for a bonus, Ignon said.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, N.Y., also agreed Thursday to grant final approval for Hostess to sell its cult-favorite brands and shut down its operations for good. The company filed for bankruptcy after a battle with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. The union accused the company of slashing wages and benefits while bumping up executive pay.

Last week, Drain gave interim approval to the liquidation, which is expected to take about a year. Hostess' closure would result in more than 18,000 workers losing their jobs.

[molson]

If they split that among all 18,000 employees instead they could have given them all a one-time payment of $100.

Even the leftover staff of Enron got bonuses to wind down the company. It's kind of a dead-end job. And it's kind of tough to bring in new talent to do it.

[Abe Sargent]

The local store here in KOP still had Twinkies today, but not in boxes, just the two packs. They had a ton of snack cakes but nothing left. They said that Monday would likely be their last day, open from 10 to 3, closed tomorrow. That was likely my last trip to Hostess :(


When I was a child, my grandmother's farm in Clarksbug WV needed bread for the animals. So we would take a truck tot eh local Hostess store and collect their expired bread for them free of charge, and then use it to feed the animals, such as ducks and stuff. Moldy bread is fine for them, and the store managed to get rid of their stuff without spending any money or work hours.

When were we at the store, my grandmother would always buy me one snack cake as a gift. Every single time, i would get a Honey Bun.


Here's to Hostess, Wonder Bread, and all of the many days I've spent with them and their products.

[stevew]

I, for one, now welcome our new TastyKake overlords

[sterlingice]

I guess it's up to me to do the thread necromancy

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/19/news/companies/twinkies-wonder-bread/index.html


A bankruptcy judge has given final approval for the sale of Twinkies, Wonder Bread and many of Hostess Brands' other assets, clearing the way for the iconic products to return to shelves.




SI

[21C]

Hostess: Twinkies to return to shelves July 15 - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-twinkies-return-shelves-july-15-163913503.html)

[BYU 14]

I just want zingers