So Sad, No More Twinkies

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Well, when a dude on a conveyer belt is making twice the money that someone who went to college is making, that says something. Unions were created to ensure that working conditions were safe, but that's not really a problem anymore. Hell, you don't need a union to sue the shit out of a company for negligence. They are an archaic system that is strangling this country.

You greatly overrate "college" as it pertains to providing useful and applicable job skills in today's world, you clearly misunderstand the representative purpose of unions, you're completely wrong about current job safety in the US, and you're blaming the victims for their own murder.
 
Well, increasingly that white collar guy with the database is outside the US. But that also means there are a lot of emerging markets for American products too.

But people get too hung up about unions. I think they can be a good thing or a pain in the ass, but that's not a uniquely American issue:

Union % of workforce by country

1101UNIONMEMBERS.JPG

Check out how the economies of the countries at the top of that graph are doing, and compare them to the rest.

Pretty clear unions are necessary for a stable and thriving economy.
 
either that or a bunch of crackaz in a small country.
 
i thought twinkies were supposed to last forever :(
 
***************** UPDATE *****************

I was talking with a coworker just now. Her husband works for a close competitor of Hostess. They are going to step up and increase their similar product lines by 400% immediately. However, as they don't want to happen to them what the union did to Hostess, they will not add a single person. It will all be done via automation and with the same people they already have. They will be buying some equipment from a company that was contracted to make Hostess stuff as they have to also shut down and lay off their employees.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now that was some funny line right there.


You're not being kind to Zags. He's just the pawn in the whole scheme of things. He just does what he's told by the powers-that-be. Safe, secure, and seduced.
 
***************** UPDATE *****************

I was talking with a coworker just now. Her husband works for a close competitor of Hostess. They are going to step up and increase their similar product lines by 400% immediately. However, as they don't want to happen to them what the union did to Hostess, they will not add a single person. It will all be done via automation and with the same people they already have.

If you believe that I've got some beautiful riverfront property in Christmas Valley you might be interested in.
 
Hmmm.

Liberals are always being accused of "class warfare". What's it called when conservatives do it?

The left wants higher taxes on the rich; the right wants to cut wages for the people who actually work for a living. And people wonder why I find the left the lesser of evils.
 
The unions are killing the golden goose in this case.

They can have all the "wages" they want from a defunct company. They seem satisfied with that.
 
Hmmm.

Liberals are always being accused of "class warfare". What's it called when conservatives do it?

The left wants higher taxes on the rich; the right wants to cut wages for the people who actually work for a living. And people wonder why I find the left the lesser of evils.

I do not see where you get that from

As someone who just took a pay cut due to a business restructuring to survive.. I am far from super cool and groovy on wage cuts.

If I did not have a long trem agenda, I could be just like those guys..out on my ass.

The company was in its seconed BK restructure, needed 8 percent back from the union to update and survive..union said no, company cant go on with all the factors thay were going to have to face..hgher taxes, obama care and no reliefe to update..where is the ownership the bad guy/
 
Last edited:
Hmmm.

Liberals are always being accused of "class warfare". What's it called when conservatives do it?

The left wants higher taxes on the rich; the right wants to cut wages for the people who actually work for a living. And people wonder why I find the left the lesser of evils.

Correction.

The Left want to violate property rights by taxing more and more of your property. They want to violate right of contract by forcing unions on unwilling participants.

Many on the Right just want their rights back.
 
What goes unnoticed is that the 6,000 odd union employees helped to put a firm of 18,000 over the edge. Management certainly shares some blame, but right now one employee killed the jobs of three.
 
What goes unnoticed is that the 6,000 odd union employees helped to put a firm of 18,000 over the edge. Management certainly shares some blame, but right now one employee killed the jobs of three.

So, my (serious) question is, isn't it in the better interest of the company for the management to concede to the union's wishes and take a pay cut instead of pocketing millions of dollars as they fold their company? I mean, it just seems petty. But maybe I don't understand how this stuff works.
 
So, my (serious) question is, isn't it in the better interest of the company for the management to concede to the union's wishes and take a pay cut instead of pocketing millions of dollars as they fold their company? I mean, it just seems petty. But maybe I don't understand how this stuff works.

Likely it's a choice between lowering labor costs or operating at a structural loss, which in the business world really isn't a choice at all.
 
Likely it's a choice between lowering labor costs or operating at a structural loss, which in the business world really isn't a choice at all.

So would a union actually make a demand of the company they work for that would cause that company to fold, like what we're supposed to believe happened at Hostess?

Also please explain what "operating at a structural loss" means.
 
Twinkies will return.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49878304

Snoballs were sweeter and more popular with us kids. Grownups bought the cupcakes and Wonder Bread. Dingdongs were invented too late for me. That left Twinkies as the barely-sweet ugly duckling, so they sold the least. Starting in the 80s, comedians noted how useless Twinkies are, and kept saying the name, so now a new generation thinks that they were Hostess's main product.

Just like they think "Leave it to Beaver" was the main family comedy, because of comedians beginning in the 70s. It wasn't even in the top 5. "Father Knows Best" was #1.

Revisionist history.
 
So would a union actually make a demand of the company they work for that would cause that company to fold, like what we're supposed to believe happened at Hostess?

Also please explain what "operating at a structural loss" means.

Sure. It happens all the time. Why do you think GM and Chrysler went down the toilet? Labor costs. They started off $1,700-$2,400 behind other carmakers before they pressed the first metal. As a result, they had to cut corners to make up the difference. It's why American car manufacturers have such cheap feeling interiors.

And "operating at a structural loss" means that the market price of the product you produce is less than the inputs required to manufacture it. Solyndra is a wonderful example.
 
It really pisses me off how no one talks about the death of Snoballs. Twinkies shwinkies.
 
By the way, the Twinkie isn't dead. Someone will pay Hostess' creditors the rights to the name(s) and one or more of the product recipes.
 
In fact, I have one of the valuable Twinkies in my house and will auction it off. Anyway, my article above says the causes were fourfold.

The company, weighed down by debt, management turmoil, rising labor costs and the changing tastes of America,

This is their 3rd bankruptcy.

Irving, Texas-based Hostess filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January for the second time in less than a decade. Its predecessor company, Interstate Bakeries, sought bankruptcy protection in 2004 and changed its name to Hostess after emerging in 2009.

I think they had to do it for the 4 reasons, so they timed it for when the labor contract was up, to make the union the scapegoat to shareholders, instead of management.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top