Hostess closing
 

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?

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

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

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

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

Way to stick it to the man!

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.

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.

Only if the new owners are really really stupid.

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.

Pretty sure of what this means for AMERICA

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

Doughnuts are my ultimate weakness in general.

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?

Please, sir, may I have some more gruel?

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."


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

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

Hostess shut down: Twinkie maker to go out of business - chicagotribune.com

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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)

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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.

Hopefully, the workers land on their feet.

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.

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.

If they get laid off they are all free to come live with me until they get back on there feet!

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

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

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.

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?

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