Hostess LIquidation expected friday - goodbye Tweenkies!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KalashnikovMarine**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow, They are destroying the compony because the wworkers refused to work?
WWhy not hire new workers? Or give in to the demands. Surely Less(but still significant) money is better then none at all??

They aren't destroying anything. The blame for this falls squarely on the laps of the Union bosses. Demanding more and more from a bankrupt company with nothing to give is a terrible plan.

**whembly**

Really... Mr. Panda knows...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83979.html (yea, yea... politico...

)

so... lemme get this straight:

In 2009, Hostess came out of bankruptcy thanks in part to private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings, which made a $130 million investment...

So the company was already in bankruptcy, an investment group brought it out of bankruptcy due to a $130 million investment, in which the investors, get this, hoped to one day see a profit on.

The union workers disagreed, and told the investors that they should not only never expect a profit, but that they would continue escalating demands so that additional bankruptcies and additional bailouts of millions of dollars would follow.

So, the investors said: See ya. No use throwing good money after bad.

But remember, it's the people who spent $130 million to bring the company out of bankruptcy who are the villains here.

Just what did the Union expect? An open check book?

Hmmm an 8% paycut is > than no job at all...

**Mr. Burning**

I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.

Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.

**Mattman154**

Mr. Burning wrote:
I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.

Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.

That's why I'm of the belief that unions are out of date.

**Zuul**

Hostess were the folks who made almost all of the junkfood I bought...I'll miss those little chocolate doughnuts.

**Mr. Burning**

Mattman154 wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
I can't believe the land of the free has such bonehead unions. I mean, it's a good thing the union is free to make a choice NOT to support an ailing company and the 18,000 workers.

Funny thing is the union leaders will sit pretty while their members won't be able to afford the very bread they bake.

That's why I'm of the belief that unions are out of date.

They always make me chuckle, especially in supposed non socialist countries.

Good ideas in principle but fail due to the wrong people being in charge, and the associated fear by employers.

Still, you are loosing a sugary snack, we lost a car industry.

**djones520**

AustonT wrote:
If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.

Something similar happened at a big local company a few years back. The owners were hurting, and they told their union that they couldn't afford a pay raise, there would be no benefit cuts, but if they union voted for a pay raise the company would close it's doors and everyone would lose their jobs.

So what did the union do? Voted for a pay raise.

Then they all lost their jobs.

**Cheesecat**

feth! Never got to try a Twinkie.

**Zuul**

Run to the gas station and grab one!

**Cheesecat**

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Box-of-Twinkies-Unopened-/281024591889?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416e5ef811

Lol!.

**DeathReaper**

nomsheep wrote:
Noooooooo, I never even got to try them.

Cheesecat wrote:
feth! Never got to try a Twinkie.

Anyone that wants one, I can get some and send you a few.

Let me know how many and I will let you know what the cost and shipping will be.

Three of them should be fairly reasonable for anyone though.

**Lt. Coldfire**

Cheesecat wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Box-of-Twinkies-Unopened-/281024591889?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416e5ef811

Lol!.

Lol did you read the questions and answers at the bottom? Awesome.

**ChiliPowderKeg**

Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Box-of-Twinkies-Unopened-/281024591889?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416e5ef811

Lol!.

Lol did you read the questions and answers at the bottom? Awesome.

Those are hilarious

Q: Hi there, I'm a reporter for the Huffington Post in New York working on a story on demand for Twinkies skyrocketing after the Hostess bankruptcy. I saw your listing and was hoping you might be able to help me out. What price do you think your box of Twinkies will ultimately fetch? Are you yourself stocking up on the pastries? Would love to chat sometime this afternoon -- feel free to call or email. Thanks! Alice Hines alice.hines at huffingtonpost.com 212 402 4702 Nov-16-12
A: Sorry, but I'm saving myself for 'Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld'. Greg is dreamy, TV's Andy Levy is smug and smart, and Bill Schulz sucks. Thanks anyway!

Q: Can I soar through the air on these twinkies, as depicted on the box? Nov-16-12
A: Yes, but only if you sit on said Twinkie whilst flying on an airplane. If you sit on it while on terra firma, you'll probably just end up with a creamy crotch, which as I understand has a following at www.cakesitters.com.

Q: I dare you to post this! The Hostess company is going out of business but selling the rights to make their snacks to another company. So your claim that your Twinkies are going to be discontinued is a lie!!!! Nov-16-12
A: Dare accepted, broheim. There will be a disruption the flow of sweet, creamy Twinkies until such a transfer is made and the new owner (probably China) gets set up for production. If I'm a betting man, I'd say that the goddamned Chinese will buy the brand, make them in the cities of Chiang Kai-Shek, Yao Ming or Kung Pow and export them back to us. Twinkies will never taste the same. They'll probably taste like radishes, cats, rocks, or whatever they eat over there. This is why it is imperative that you get off your dead ass and BID ON THEM NOW!

Q: $50 per twinkie, wow thats a little much dont you think? id go $40 but not $50 lol Nov-16-12
A: You'll think $50 is a bargain when then Twinkie Wars of 2013 come into realized prophecy, at which time you won't be able to buy a Twinkie crumb for $50, mister. Buying a Twinkie now is a hedge against the leviathan inflation that looms.

Q: Can you please tell me if this is the light twinkie? Nov-16-12
A: Are you a communist or something? This is a box of the the full-strength magillas, pal. These original Twinkies were engineered to hold the maximum amount of sugar anything that size could hold. Any more, and sugar crystals would pepper your face like buckshot.

Q: Would you take $800 for two? Nov-16-12
A: I certainly would entertain that.

**Grey Templar**

The union has basically put 180,000 people out of work instead of a few thousand getting a small paycut.

And these arn't guys making minimum wage taking a cut. They're making 40-50 grand.

And the people out of work won't have an easy time finding a job. Hostess's competitors will simply ramp up production without hiring any new workers, easily done with automation and not currently running at full capacity.

The reasons Unions were formed were valid, however today the issues are so petty. The Unions would rather their clients lose their Jobs and say they never caved to demands then to have to compromise.

Its not that the Corporations are deliberatly withholding money. They literally don't have the money to pay their employees.

Its the same story with Teacher's Unions. There is no money to pay them, suck it up and take the pay cut. Its better then having no pay at all.

**LordofHats**

Grey Templar wrote:
Its the same story with Teacher's Unions. There is no money to pay them, suck it up and take the pay cut. Its better then having no pay at all.

My mom hasn't gotten a pay raise in 5 years. But the school board (in the one of the richest counties in the United States of America) can spend $5,000,000 getting new sod for all the foot ball fields and give themselves a pay increase of 5k each.

Its not that simple.

**Vulcan**

AustonT wrote:
Vulcan wrote:Those who can AFFORD to are eating better. The working poor are stuck with what they can afford... and have time to prepare, given that they need to work THREE part-time jobs to make ends meet anymore - two to live on and one to pay off the health insurance racketeers.

This has nothing to do with this thread.

Fair enough. My bad.

For an on-topic post: Yeah, the union sure seems to have screwed the pooch on this one. Before making demands, it behooves the union to do a little research and see if their demands will wreck the company first. Striking while the company is undergoing bankrupcy is... foolish, at best.

**tyrant of loserville**

Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Box-of-Twinkies-Unopened-/281024591889?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416e5ef811

Lol!.

Lol did you read the questions and answers at the bottom? Awesome.

Yeah those are gut busting! Not looking forward to the Twinkie Wars of 2013

.

On a more serious note, most of the people i know that are part of a union feel that they are obsolete and actually hurt the cause. In Hostess' case I would of hired scabs due to the pay cut being court ordered. Im wondering iif the union bosses deliberately left that part out amd/or undermined the importance or the mob chose to do strike anyway.

**Ouze**

I knew this story when posted here would blame the union. And indeed, their hands aren't really clean in this, no question. But please, lets not pretend that this is all because of the evil unions. This are two sides to the story.

**Vulcan**

Well. Color me mistaken then.

**tyrant of loserville**

Im sorry im not trying to put blame solely on the Union, I wanted some more insight to the workings as my information comes from others in a union. Most of my working life was in the military and all my civ work has been non union.

**Andrew1975**

Got to love when a bankrupt company increases corporate pay by 80%. Sure when you look at it that money wouldn't make a dent with what the Union wanted and how much in debt they were, but it does really show bad faith. I wouldn't want to be in the Unions shoes at that point "So we have to tell our people to take a pay cut when you get a 80% raise....or we all lose our jobs. Isn't there a third option"

There is a lot of anti union sentiment on this thread, and I've had my own issues with unions in the past, but lets remember that corporate greed has gotten way out of control this last decade, the unions may not be the perfect answer and in their own right are just as bad, but at least they are an opposing force. It makes me shiver when I see that since the fall of wallstreet corporate pay has gone up faster than before the fall, yet everyone elses wages and benefits are taking a dive.

I worked at ATT and they wanted us to take a pay cut while the CEO got a significant raise to his already staggering pay. If the company was facing a hard time I believe we might have negotiated a deal, but don't tell me you can't afford my benefits, while the millionaire that runs the company gets a giant raise. It was completely insulting and our Union went on strike and AAT caved after 2 days.

**KalashnikovMarine**

The average Union IS corporate greed personified. It's a second corporation to work for. A bunch of corrupt fat cats who will happily sell the workers out in a minute if it keeps the dues rolling in and some nice kickbacks from the companies their workers are employed by.

Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.

**Orlanth**

Mr. Burning wrote:

Clever Union, 8% paycut NO! we well cut our wonderbread noses off to spite our faces.

18,000 workers will be glorious martyrs to our indomitable spirit!

Actually it more like.

We want to you to work harder for less and receive a gak pension so you spend your retirement in poverty while we mismanage the company.

Alternately Twinkies just don't sell anymore.

**Mr. Burning**

Orlanth wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:

Clever Union, 8% paycut NO! we well cut our wonderbread noses off to spite our faces.

18,000 workers will be glorious martyrs to our indomitable spirit!

Actually it more like.

We want to you to work harder for less and receive a gak pension so you spend your retirement in poverty while we mismanage the company.

Alternately Twinkies just don't sell anymore.

Yeah, I just read about the mismanagement, fair enough. Having a whopping pay rise for one of the directors isn't a good move in this situation, but then, that seems like a loop hole in American laws.

So managment and the unions/workers are to blame, with with company failing to adapt and change.

Ther are a lot of workers who work hard despite mis-management and being gakked upon, but there is certainly a case here, that workers in different industries like to preserve the staus quo a little too much.

**KalashnikovMarine**

In other news, the average American life span jumped five years with Hostess announcing it was closing...

**Lone Cat**

AustonT wrote:
If the pay cut was court ordered, why the feth did they strike in the first place? And who fething strikes for thier benefits knowning the outcome is LOSING THIER BENEFITS.
Jar Jar no undastand.

Recently on the Facebook. a teacher shared a 'poster' displaying the timeline of Hostess downfalls.
According to the poster
- Since 2002. Hostess changed 6 CEOs, all of which failed to lift the company status
- 2003: Hostess began closing manufacturing units
- 2004: Hostess went bankrupt for the first time. BCTGM (a form of labour union) and Hostess met the first agreement, BCTGM aggreed to concess wages and benefits, the company recovered $110 M. workers hoped that the concessions was for a common good. between them and Hostess, they even hoped that the lump sum of $110M will be reinvested in the business. all the sacrifies gone in vain because the $110M didn't go to reinvestments, I believe that it went to either Managers pocket or Stock Exchange. (Top managers went to the stockmarket with that large sum of money and exploits their skills to squeeze many more from it. even so they don't bring that fortune back to rebuild their actual businesses mew!)
- 2009: Hostess emerged from bankruptcy. it was not because of the recalmations of the pruned-out production units. but it was because it was owned by equity firms and The Hedge Funds. so they chose not to reinvest but to use their crafts to make another fortunes in the stock exchanges. this mismanagements caused the sales to drop. and the debts to piled up
- 2012: Hostess went bankrupt once again. and THIS TIME IT IS A FINALE. BCTGM was asked to do the same concessions. this time it had been refused. without the concession. the debtors simply liquidated the company assets and cross the HOSTESS name out for good.

This should be HALF OF THE FACTS behind the downfall. it was sent to me by a teacher who became 'Anti-Corporates, Pro localizations' supporters. i NEED another HALF, which came from the Manager's side (and validify their blame on Union yells). The facts, however, seemed to be on the sides of the 'leftists' since the over-emphasis on stock exchanges affairs can actually ruin a money-making industries/businesses. In contrast, hard-working business bosses who emphasizes his / her operations in what his/her business/industry actually earns from. i.e. Products (including services) and stay away from any Stock Market tend to be more successful.

**Andrew1975**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The average Union IS corporate greed personified. It's a second corporation to work for. A bunch of corrupt fat cats who will happily sell the workers out in a minute if it keeps the dues rolling in and some nice kickbacks from the companies their workers are employed by.

Wait isn't that what they would have been doing by accepting the deal? The didn't sell out the workers and they will no longer be getting dues. They stood up against the rampant carpetbagging that is taking over corporate America.

Bust the unions. ALL OF THEM, then try it again with some very strict limits on what unions can do with dues and limits on what union leadership can make financially. The list of reforms needed is long, but till then unions are just another corrupt enemy of any schmuck trying to make an honest living.

This is ridiculous, yes, not all unions are perfect and some go too far, but this wave of anti union sentiment that I see is for the most part uncalled for. What exactly did the Union do wrong here? I see too many people buying into this evil Union rhetoric that corporate America is really trying to sell the American people. If it was not for Unions there would be nobody to oppose corporations from treating their employees however they please. You want Union reform, thats fine, I want Corporate reform first!

In the last ten years we have witnessed the evisceration of the middle class in this country. It's not because of Unions, I'll tell you that. It was because of uncontrolled corporate greed. The Unions appear to be one of the few forces defending middle class jobs, from CEOs that make millions of dollars but cry for the shareholders. So many corporations and even the government have tried to deflect much of the blame onto the Unions, don't drink the cool aid. Unions are for right now a necessary evil and are being attacked by some pretty powerful and rich lobbies for that reason.

**AustonT**

Ouze wrote:
I knew this story when posted here would blame the union. And indeed, their hands aren't really clean in this, no question. But please, lets not pretend that this is all because of the evil unions. This are two sides to the story.

No one is questioning that Hostess was mismanaged, hense why they're in bankruptcy twice in a decade., you also note dispute the title of your link "Fox Ignores Hostess' Array Of Troubles To Scapegoat Union For Liquidation" there's not a single link to a Fox page ITT. The reason why we're blaming the union, is BECAUSE IT'S THE UNIONS FAULT. Even the OTHER union says so.

Teamsters wrote:Hostess' problems go back almost a decade. The company has clearly been mismanaged for quite some time. However, the workers should not suffer because of poor management and therefore, the Teamsters Union tried everything in its power during the company's most recent financial difficulties to shape an outcome that would put Hostess on strong footing to be viable and preserve jobs. Unfortunately, the company's operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive. Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisors, understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess.

some fething guy wrote:Yesterday the Teamsters called for the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), which represents about 6,000 Hostess employees, to hold a secret ballot, instead of the voice vote that had resulted in the UFCW rejection of the same concessions that the Teamsters had accepted earlier this year. While not naming the BCTGM directly, it's pretty obvious they're saying the loss of 18,000 jobs at Hostess are the fault of the BCTGM.

But let's not concentrate on the bakery's unions obvious role in losing the other 12,000 Hostess employees including the 9,000 Teamsters thier jobs. Let's talk about the 620 some odd jobs the bakers union fething crowed about on thier own website.

http://bctgm.org/2012/11/bctgm-members-initiate-national-strike-at-hostess-brands/
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/hostess-closes-st-louis-plant/article_a27e262c-ee54-5bf1-9f18-5c6c4c187f15.html

Yeah there's two side to this story.
Theres the side of unemployed workers that voted to keep thier jobs in exchange for a 25% stake in the company, 2 spots on the board of directors, an 8% pay cut followed by a subsequent 4% raise over what was it 4 years? Sure let's go with that.
And on the other side you have the unemployed workers who didn't just cause thier own unemployment they put 2 times thier own number out of work. So yeah for some reason I blame the union.

**Grey Templar**

Hostess could possably have survived if the Union in question had accepted the cuts. Granted, Hostess may not have survived in the long run, but the immediate cause of Hostess's failure is this Union.

Which puts the blame for the loss of Jobs squarely on the Baker's Union. Both their own members and the members of the other Union.

**SoloFalcon1138**

The ones most affected by this will be the chemical companies who, for decades, have been supplying the bulk of the ingredients for Hostess products...