The Unions killed the Twinkie

[rwh11385]

No I would guess not but they are the final reason they were closing as they did not want to negotiate with corporate. This was also pointed out by the other union after they reached a deal with corporate.

So this thread start is the typical misleading, biased crap that you always post. Why not avoid being simplistic and hearing the whole case instead of making a quick judgment and decision, or parroting some short-sighted opinion on the matter?

Most likely had a hand it in but unless you have full access to the books you cant make any statement to either side and is mute because they got though it to this point.

The point would be moot. But funny how you are so quick to be certain that unions killed the Twinkie, without properly researching the company history - or realizing that perhaps a) The Twinkie likely wouldn't die with the company b) The company wasn't dead yet

its their right as a company to make those decisions. The tail does not wag the dog.

It's their decisions, but any criticism of the company can also be a criticism of their decisions and poor leadership, as much as it was your choice was to solely focus blame on the unions and that choice could be criticized.

Maybe you should understand that if the people did not like working for Hostess, they have the right to go find employment anywhere else someone will hire them. And that its not the workers decision on which way the company is ran. IT IS THEIR decision to whether they want to work for a company ran the way this one was.

What does that have to do with this? Of course they can choose where to work and should have bounced in 2004 or earlier if they wanted a stable job. But the problem was the industry was overcapacity so finding work elsewhere in similar work would have been challenging as well.

The real point was that it is your decision on how to discuss a subject and to be informed and educated, or be your typical self and wholly simple-minded and quick to make a claim without consideration of the facts. You find a viewpoint that supports your presumptions and post it through your confirmation bias, regardless of if it is really valid or not.

As mentioned previously, surviving this or not, the brands will likely be bought off by other companies - hopefully like the Pabst's owner which is skilled at reviving old brands, unlike the PE owners who have currently just continued the company's swirl around the toilet bowl.

[Vedubin01]

So this thread start is the typical misleading, biased crap that you always post. Why not avoid being simplistic and hearing the whole case instead of making a quick judgment and decision, or parroting some short-sighted opinion on the matter?

I posted it to start discussion you FUCK TARD! Sure its slanted and I am also against unions but it was posted to nothing more bring light to a subject and spin it to start discussion.

The point would be moot. But funny how you are so quick to be certain that unions killed the Twinkie, without properly researching the company history - or realizing that perhaps a) The Twinkie likely wouldn't die with the company b) The company wasn't dead yet

Once again it was a subject starter. "Twinkie killed by Unions" or what ever it was labeled. Sure someone would buy the name and carry it on as Im sure there is still profit in the name. Get off your high hose!

What does that have to do with this? Of course they can choose where to work and should have bounced in 2004 or earlier if they wanted a stable job. But the problem was the industry was overcapacity so finding work elsewhere in similar work would have been challenging as well.

And that is no fault of the company.

The real point was that it is your decision on how to discuss a subject and to be informed and educated, or be your typical self and wholly simple-minded and quick to make a claim without consideration of the facts. You find a viewpoint that supports your presumptions and post it through your confirmation bias, regardless of if it is really valid or not.

I actually started this thread as soon as the new broke. I am also trying to run a successful business and a lot of the time dont have the time I guess as yourself to be more informed. That's why we got you.

You might help educate some people here if it was not for your high all mighty attitude. You and your feriority complex is mind boggling!

As mentioned previously, surviving this or not, the brands will likely be bought off by other companies - hopefully like the Pabst's owner which is skilled at reviving old brands, unlike the PE owners who have currently just continued the company's swirl around the toilet bowl.[/quote]

[rwh11385]

I posted it to start discussion you FUCK TARD! Sure its slanted and I am also against unions but it was posted to nothing more bring light to a subject and spin it to start discussion.

You calling anyone that is irony at its finest.

Once again it was a subject starter. "Twinkie killed by Unions" or what ever it was labeled. Sure someone would buy the name and carry it on as Im sure there is still profit in the name. Get off your high hose!

Why start a discussion in a pit of ignorance and bias? Not everyone enjoys Faux News.

And that is no fault of the company.

No, but your path down with that discussion also was not a valid point here.

I actually started this thread as soon as the new broke. I am also trying to run a successful business and a lot of the time dont have the time I guess as yourself to be more informed. That's why we got you.

You might help educate some people here if it was not for your high all mighty attitude. You and your feriority complex is mind boggling!

So basically defending your ignorance and bias. Maybe if you spent half the time reading as you do making stupid arguments and baseless claims you would be informed. It's not that hard. Just read to get enough information to build an opinion, instead of starting out with an opinion and picking and choosing information to confirm what you already thought.

I'm sorry I don't condone your level of simple-mindness and slanted views invading the political discussion of this board and turning it into a childish banter of opinion instead of actually caring to base it on logic, reason, or... facts. You don't appreciate information or discussion as you continuously attempt to disprove any truth that others post that contradict your slanted views... like a typical RWNJ. Instead of admitting that your thread title was dishonestly misleading, you tried to claim that Obama was "my Jesus" as you only see the world in black and white, so anyone who doesn't see the world in your simplistic ignorant way must be a damn liberal. This is regardless of the fact I voted for McCain and dislike Obama, although I dislike misinformation and stupid bias more.

Maybe someday you will realize that some people hold truth above repeating misinformation or lies that support their interests, side, or candidates. Until then, you will keep attacking people who may side with you generally, even if they don't buy the same BS that you do and choose to parrot.

[Vedubin01]

Why start a discussion in a pit of ignorance and bias? Not everyone enjoys Faux News.

Yeah it was a Bain style killing right?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83979.html



And keep up with your feriority complex, your winning them over!

[rwh11385]

Yeah it was a Bain style killing right?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83979.html

And keep up with your feriority complex, your winning them over!

Yes, both sides have ignorant people with biased views that miss the whole picture because they are too busy arguing their side to realize the answer is somewhere in the gray. But thank you for showing what is wrong with modern media and also the people who repeat their opinions as their own.

Keep trying to attack my standards of logic and facts as a negative... only those as simple as you who value their side "winning" over the truth may buy it.


The real question is why do you want the world to base their outlook, voting, or actions on ignorance and parroting slanted views instead of becoming informed and educated on their own right? A country with a poorly informed populace cannot hope it will make good judgment when it comes to elections. Is there a certain reason you wish for people to be as simpleminded and uninformed as you? Do you view education and intellectualism as a threat to your views and ways?

Do you enjoy you throwing your slanted sources against HuffPost or other liberal slanted sources in an endless and pointless bantering of bias? Or does it make more sense for the discussion to be based in logic and facts with both sides coming into an educated middle ground in which reality is understood instead of a wasteful exchange of opinionated beliefs?

[BraveUlysses]

It's INferiority for fuck's sake.

[Vedubin01]

It's INferiority for fuck's sake.

Inferiority complex means one feels less worth than everyone else.

Feriority Complex is where one feels holier than others or a higher self worth.

[rwh11385]

Inferiority complex means one feels less worth than everyone else.

Feriority Complex is where one feels holier than others or a higher self worth.

Yeah, I've never seen that word used before. Maybe you mean superiority complex?

I apologize for Brave's standards of using actual words if he has offended you and made you feel small.

[uofom3]

Union greed doesn't hold a candle to corporate greed. I never heard of a Union official getting a million dollar BONUS for doing his job while the workforce is struggling and the corporation is getting bail out money from the government. 80-150K is a joke to these guys, yet everybody is mad (jealous?) about the little guy making that much. My Union is huge, but we don't have a single jet, helicopters, houses, rental car pools, luxury box at the Staples center, limo's, all of these expenses that are labeled as "cost of doing business" are being abused by the company execs. Wanna talk about entitlement? Union's just want to work. Everything is negotiated in the contract. They don't work without a contract...so what's the problem? You blame the Union for asking for a high wage, yet not the company for agreeing to it? Sounds 50/50 to me.

Good read...
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/20...kies-bankrupt/


"Rayburn announced that the pay of the four top executives would go down to $1 for the year, but that their full salaries would be reinstated no later than Jan. 1. Hostess pays Rayburn $125,000 a month, according to court filings. At the same time Rayburn became CEO, Gephardt's son Matthew, 41, the COO of the Gephardt Group, was put on the Hostess board as a $100,000-a-year independent director."

Hmmmm this is EXACTLY what someone was just complaining about certain Union's doing...interesting. Told you it happens all the time, yet no one blames the companies.

So this is Hostess's 2nd bankruptcy in 5 years. They've had 6 different CEO's in 10 years. Hostess wanted more cuts in labor but the Union already agreed on concessions in previous contract and didn't want to give away more. Should be interesting to see what happens.

Think of it this way - hypothetical situation. And this is hyper simplified.

Company does 100 million in revenue per year.

Labor is 20mm (mm being short for million)

Benefit costs are 10mm

Taxes/deb servicing costs/input costs/op expenses are 60mm.

Company makes a 10mm profit that it either reinvests, sets aside, etc. healthy organization... Right? Right.

So lets say the labor force is unionized and they feel that they no only deserve a bigger slice of that profit pie for wages, but also retirement benefits. They bargain, strike, etc, and get a larger slice of the pie - another 5mm in wages and benefits.

So now the company has 5mm less to plow into funding expanding operations or one-time costs, but they get by and continue to go. Company makes more money, the cycle repeats, unions get more, and it starts all over.

This works right up until the company goes through its life cycle and reaches a point where it's not growing because they don't have more money to put back into the business to expand - as every time it has the unions have taken more. So now the organization can't grow it's market share (make more money) but it also has to, over time, raise the pay regardless of union status to keep up with inflation.

Eventually the company begins to take on debt (in many cases) to continue financing operations because they can't cut costs as the labor/benefit deals with the unions make it virtually impossible to reduce that expense. So expenses have to be cut elsewhere which reduces growth of the organization and closes the negative feedback loop. Then the company can't pay it's bills or finance its debt and now it's BK and its done.

In a non-union organization... People would get axed, benefits cut,etc. which could reduce one or both of the largest costs to an organization - labor and benefits. This means it has money to service it's debt, stay afloat, reorg, and hopefully expand again.


I realize this is extremely simplified and taken into a vacuum ignoring many other factors... But it speaks to a general idea of how union labor/benefit costs can damage an organization.

[BraveUlysses]

Inferiority complex means one feels less worth than everyone else.

Feriority Complex is where one feels holier than others or a higher self worth.

This is where a normal person would just admit they're wrong.

[rwh11385]

Think of it this way - hypothetical situation. And this is hyper simplified.

Company does 100 million in revenue per year.

Labor is 20mm (mm being short for million)

Benefit costs are 10mm

Taxes/deb servicing costs/input costs/op expenses are 60mm.

Company makes a 10mm profit that it either reinvests, sets aside, etc. healthy organization... Right? Right.

So lets say the labor force is unionized and they feel that they no only deserve a bigger slice of that profit pie for wages, but also retirement benefits. They bargain, strike, etc, and get a larger slice of the pie - another 5mm in wages and benefits.

So now the company has 5mm less to plow into funding expanding operations or one-time costs, but they get by and continue to go. Company makes more money, the cycle repeats, unions get more, and it starts all over.

This works right up until the company goes through its life cycle and reaches a point where it's not growing because they don't have more money to put back into the business to expand - as every time it has the unions have taken more. So now the organization can't grow it's market share (make more money) but it also has to, over time, raise the pay regardless of union status to keep up with inflation.

Eventually the company begins to take on debt (in many cases) to continue financing operations because they can't cut costs as the labor/benefit deals with the unions make it virtually impossible to reduce that expense. So expenses have to be cut elsewhere which reduces growth of the organization and closes the negative feedback loop. Then the company can't pay it's bills or finance its debt and now it's BK and its done.

In a non-union organization... People would get axed, benefits cut,etc. which could reduce one or both of the largest costs to an organization - labor and benefits. This means it has money to service it's debt, stay afloat, reorg, and hopefully expand again.


I realize this is extremely simplified and taken into a vacuum ignoring many other factors... But it speaks to a general idea of how union labor/benefit costs can damage an organization.

I think your simple allegory is missing that the biggest influence on legacy costs came during WWII when the government legislated that companies competing for workers couldn't increase their wages but could attract people with health care insurance.

I'm not aware of any companies that have greatly increased their benefits, while the general trend is shifting from DB to DC plans, with the fight against workers paying more of the health care costs.

The problem originates long before now, with bad assumptions and poor funding of the benefits promised. Like social security and medicare, we're trying to be solvent with what has greatly outgrow original expectations. Calculations were based on different actuarial lifespans and also high assumed rates of return. It may have passed in the 90s, but the dot-com bubble burst started a bad decade for funding the massive liabilities that are related to all the retiring baby boomers.

http://www.retirementtownhall.com/?p=1038

http://www.benefitscanada.com/pensions/other-pensions/u-s-pensions-hit-all-time-funding-low-31130

The funded status of the typical U.S. corporate pension plan hit a record low in July, according to separate reports from BNY Mellon and Mercer.

The average funded status dropped 2.9 percentage points to 68.7%, reports BNY Mellon, while the latest figures from Mercer show that the aggregate deficit in pension plans sponsored by S&P 1500 companies grew US$146 billion during July, to a record high of US$689 billion.

And I've said time and again, if you think that the liabilities from pensions are bad for companies... you ought to look up what states and cities are staring down.

Obviously we're shifting away from such liabilities from being created now with DC plans instead of DB... but we still have legacy programs that are weigh down companies... and states... Some companies are doing their best to make enough money to cost the expenses, or buying people out of the program, but there's going to be a huge issue with states being able to avoid their retirees.

[reelizmpro]

Think of it this way - hypothetical situation. And this is hyper simplified.

Company does 100 million in revenue per year.

Labor is 20mm (mm being short for million)

Benefit costs are 10mm

Taxes/deb servicing costs/input costs/op expenses are 60mm.

Company makes a 10mm profit that it either reinvests, sets aside, etc. healthy organization... Right? Right.

So lets say the labor force is unionized and they feel that they no only deserve a bigger slice of that profit pie for wages, but also retirement benefits. They bargain, strike, etc, and get a larger slice of the pie - another 5mm in wages and benefits.

So now the company has 5mm less to plow into funding expanding operations or one-time costs, but they get by and continue to go. Company makes more money, the cycle repeats, unions get more, and it starts all over.

This works right up until the company goes through its life cycle and reaches a point where it's not growing because they don't have more money to put back into the business to expand - as every time it has the unions have taken more. So now the organization can't grow it's market share (make more money) but it also has to, over time, raise the pay regardless of union status to keep up with inflation.

Eventually the company begins to take on debt (in many cases) to continue financing operations because they can't cut costs as the labor/benefit deals with the unions make it virtually impossible to reduce that expense. So expenses have to be cut elsewhere which reduces growth of the organization and closes the negative feedback loop. Then the company can't pay it's bills or finance its debt and now it's BK and its done.

In a non-union organization... People would get axed, benefits cut,etc. which could reduce one or both of the largest costs to an organization - labor and benefits. This means it has money to service it's debt, stay afloat, reorg, and hopefully expand again.


I realize this is extremely simplified and taken into a vacuum ignoring many other factors... But it speaks to a general idea of how union labor/benefit costs can damage an organization.

I hear you but some Union's also give up certain things as well, they don't just take, take, take. In my industry for example, GPS/RF ID/OCR software and cameras have eliminated a lot of clerk jobs and the Union accepted it but in return the Union got something else and the employer agreed. There must be a balance of give/take in negotiations to have good labor relations so both sides are in agreement and a contract is signed. The Union doesn't get anything that isn't agreed to by the employer. I think many companies are in trouble due to a multitude of reasons. Union's may complicate matters for the employers because they can't just impose their will on the workforce but are not the ultimate cause for their demise. That's where I disagree. I must acknowledge that every Union is different. If they aren't willing to give and just take then ultimately the business partnership will fail.

[WhyNot]

MF Unions !!!!!
Without these MF Unions, the workers would be able to be paid less than the Chinese workers do so we could keep the jobs here in the USA.
People can live on $13 per day if they have too.
And these hippy commies that say workers should get a decent salary and benefits are idiots. Capitalism is greed and greed is good.
When the rich get super rich they will hire more people and if those people are here in the usa and get less than china prisoners then the jobs stay in the usa. Simple. And get rid of the minimum wage too.
We need industry that doesn't need workers or buildings or equipment.
Or better yet, where you are either a prisoner or a prison guard.
I hope it all ends on 12-12-12

[Turf1600]

MF Unions !!!!!
Without these MF Unions, the workers would be able to be paid less than the Chinese workers do so we could keep the jobs here in the USA.
People can live on $13 per day if they have too.
And these hippy commies that say workers should get a decent salary and benefits are idiots. Capitalism is greed and greed is good.
When the rich get super rich they will hire more people and if those people are here in the usa and get less than china prisoners then the jobs stay in the usa. Simple. And get rid of the minimum wage too.
We need industry that doesn't need workers or buildings or equipment.
Or better yet, where you are either a prisoner or a prison guard.
I hope it all ends on 12-12-12

Serious question - what is your religious affiliation?

[CorvallisBMW]

RIP Twinkie, Ding Dongs, and Wonder Bread!

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/NATL-Twinkies-Maker-Hostess-Going-Out-of-Business-179643161.html

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/201158...to-be-laid-off

Good, fuck that shit. Everything Hostess makes is a nasty, over-processed diabetes explosion of corn syrup and rat feces. Nothing the made could be considered food by a long shot. Fuck em.