Twinkee: Can Survive Nuclear Holocaust, but not Union

madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
The latest bit of bad news to hit since Obama's re-election: Hostess is going out of business. No more Twinkees. No more Ding dongs. No more wonder bread. Why? The Union.

Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread, is going out of business after striking workers failed to heed a Thursday deadline to return to work, the company said.

“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in announcing that the firm had filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to shutter its business. “Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”

Hostess Brands Inc. had earlier warned employees that it would file to unwind its business and sell off assets if plant operations didn't return to normal levels by 5 p.m. Thursday. In announcing its decision, Hostess said its wind down would mean the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores in the United States.

Hostess suspended bakery operations at all its factories and said its stores will remain open for several days to sell already-baked products.
Click to expand...
What are these union idiots thinking? It's better that the company go out of business and you have no job than take a pay cut? Seriously? This is the seventies all over again and we've just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Prepare for more bad news.....
 
The company only wants to make the people who run the company very rich and forget about the workers who made them rich along the way. Then when some people organize, because the company didn't want to listen to the workers about their low incomes, the company blames the unions for what the company caused to begin with. Their are many non union companies who actually listen to what their employees are saying and give themn a better paycheck for the work they do. But other companies would rather go bankrupt rather than give in to what the workers want, but not unions, and help them out.
 
Twinkies haven't been on our shopping list since I was out of school, but I am definitely going to buy some for old times sake if I see them on the shelves before they are scoffed up. As for unions, they play an important role, but in this case they seem to have stepped in it, lol. As for a business forgetting about their workers, that is just not making sense to me if operating at a loss is the only way that the workers will feel listened to. You don't understand capitalism, business, or simple employer/employee relations. But fine, just go on supporting the bringing down the employers and don't ask where the jobs have gone.
 
quantum_wave said:
Twinkies haven't been on our shopping list since I was out of school, but I am definitely going to buy some for old times sake if I see them on the shelves before they are scoffed up.
Click to expand...
I haven't had a Twinkee in a while either, but we're planning to hit the hostess store as soon as my kids gets home from school to stock up for old times sake.
 
Buddha12 said:
But other companies would rather go bankrupt rather than give in to what the workers want, but not unions, and help them out.
Click to expand...

And these workers do not want the jobs for the price that they are offering to pay them. That's their right, too.

But when you refuse to come to work, and you get fired as a result, it's your own damn fault.
 
Buddha12 said:
The company only wants to make the people who run the company very rich and forget about the workers who made them rich along the way. Then when some people organize, because the company didn't want to listen to the workers about their low incomes, the company blames the unions for what the company caused to begin with. Their are many non union companies who actually listen to what their employees are saying and give themn a better paycheck for the work they do. But other companies would rather go bankrupt rather than give in to what the workers want, but not unions, and help them out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Buddha, but that sounds like too much assumption on your part. At this point, we have NO idea what their current wages were nor any idea what the union demands were. In my nearly 70 years I've watched unions go both ways - reasonable demands and UNreasonable ones.

I'd rather wait for - or find - more information before proclaiming just who the bad actors are.
 
The recent claim by Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn that a strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers (BCTGM) is forcing the cake maker to close three of its bakeries is a classic example of a corporation turning on its employees in the midst of a bankruptcy restructuring.

According to documents filed with the bankruptcy court earlier this year, Hostess was planning to close at least nine bakeries as part of its reorganization plan, although the company refused until recently to disclose which bakeries it intended to close.

St. Louis, MO Mayor Francis Slay also rejected the claim by Hostess that the closures were related to the strike. “I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis,” said Slay. “And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging.”

Responding to the statement by Hostess, BCTGM President Frank Hurt declared, “The recent claim by Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn that our strike is the reason for the closure of the three bakeries is simply not true,” said Hurt. “That statement is a continuation of a disturbing pattern by the company of issuing public statements that are erroneous at best and disingenuous at worst.”

BCTGM members voted to strike Hostess after the company imposed cuts that included ending payments to the employees’ pension plan while executives awarded themselves massive bonuses. Among the raises was a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) for the then-CEO of Hostess. At least nine other top executives of the company also received massive pay raises, including one who received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one that brought his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

In the latest effort by Hostess to break the strike, a Hostess spokesperson declared on November 14, “If the strikes do not end soon, we will move to liquidate the company. And we’re talking about a matter of days, not weeks.”
Click to expand...
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imai...-ceo-falsely-blames-bakery-closures-on-strike
(Bolding mine)

And these pricks (the execs, of course) honestly expect them to take a pay cut?!
 
madanthonywayne said:
The latest bit of bad news to hit since Obama's re-election: Hostess is going out of business. No more Twinkees. No more Ding dongs. No more wonder bread. Why? The Union.


What are these union idiots thinking? It's better that the company go out of business and you have no job than take a pay cut? Seriously? This is the seventies all over again and we've just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Prepare for more bad news.....
Click to expand...

Yeah I am sure if Romney were elected, he would have saved Twinkies. :) This doesn't mean the brand is dead. Someone could buy the brand. And I am sure someone will be making more bakery products to fill the void. Lacking a magic wand, they will need workers and equipment.
 
Originally Posted by madanthonywayne
What are these union idiots thinking? It's better that the company go out of business and you have no job than take a pay cut? Seriously? This is the seventies all over again and we've just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Prepare for more bad news.....
Click to expand...

... says the functionally illiterate goon.
 
parmalee said:
... says the functionally illiterate goon.
Click to expand...
Are you saying we shouldn't be preparing for more bad news? There are employers who are giving up the fight against the new rules, new taxes, and new push for the workers to claim disadvantage because they are not getting the benefits of ownership. I thought that providing jobs, working with unions along the way, and remaining in business as long as profits make it make sense was the way business was supposed to work.
 
Not sure what the hell this has to do with Obama. I see corporate sociopaths sabotaging a successful brand.
 
quantum_wave said:
Are you saying we shouldn't be preparing for more bad news? There are employers who are giving up the fight against the new rules, new taxes, and new push for the workers to claim disadvantage because they are not getting the benefits of ownership.
Click to expand...

Read my post #7--how exactly are they "not getting the benefits of ownership"?
 
quantum_wave said:
Are you saying we shouldn't be preparing for more bad news? There are employers who are giving up the fight against the new rules, new taxes, and new push for the workers to claim disadvantage because they are not getting the benefits of ownership. I thought that providing jobs, working with unions along the way, and remaining in business as long as profits make it make sense was the way business was supposed to work.
Click to expand...

Read my post #7--how exactly are they "not getting the benefits of ownership"?
 
spidergoat said:
Not sure what the hell this has to do with Obama. I see corporate sociopaths sabotaging a successful brand.
Click to expand...
The brand isn't what it used to be. There has been more and more competition, new manufacturing techniques, dietary and health issues around sugary snacks; the world has and is changing, and a very successful brand of the past will always lose ground to the competition over time. But corporate profits are mandatory to staying in business, and the unions know that. This is a case of brinksmanship which went bad.
 
spidergoat said:
Not sure what the hell this has to do with Obama. I see corporate sociopaths sabotaging a successful brand.
Click to expand...

The problems with Hostess Brands are not new. They were last in bankruptcy in 2004. Gee, I wonder, who was president then?
 
spidergoat said:
Not sure what the hell this has to do with Obama.
Click to expand...

There's a phenomena out there called "Obama Derangement Syndrome." It causes elevated blood pressure, increases in speech volume, anger and Tourette's-like interjection of profanity into ordinary speech, and it can be brought about in conservatives by discussion of Obama. In later stages of the disease, the patient begins to inject Obama into topics that have nothing to do with the president. One of the signs of this disease is a compulsion to blame Obama for everything, from Twinkie-worker strikes to hurricanes to terrorism.
 
billvon said:
There's a phenomena out there called "Obama Derangement Syndrome." It causes elevated blood pressure, increases in speech volume, anger and Tourette's-like interjection of profanity into ordinary speech, and it can be brought about in conservatives by discussion of Obama. In later stages of the disease, the patient begins to inject Obama into topics that have nothing to do with the president. One of the signs of this disease is a compulsion to blame Obama for everything, from Twinkie-worker strikes to hurricanes to terrorism.
Click to expand...
Are you sure its not the Obama supporters making up a phenomena called "Obama Derangement Syndrome", and then applying to anything that would be supported by a conservative perspective?
 
quantum_wave said:
Are you sure its not the Obama supporters making up a phenomena called "Obama Derangement Syndrome", and then applying to anything that would be supported by a conservative perspective?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure. Once you've seen a case of ODS it's hard to mistake it for anything else. Heck, there are people out there killing themselves over Obama's re-election. That, of course, is a very, very severe case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top