Slashdot Mirror


Hostess To Close; No More Twinkies

RenderSeven writes "In a press release issued today, baker Hostess Brands asked a bankruptcy court for permission to close all of its plants and sell off their assets, immediately laying off 18,500 workers. Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods, Hostess says it can no longer operate without union concessions. A crippling strike has already shut down operations at all facilities, and while the Teamsters Union has ratified a new contract to keep Hostess in business, the Bakers Union has refused saying they would rather see the company closed than accept pension cuts. The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking; citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is 'not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic' but a certain outcome if workers keep striking. If your late-night programming is fueled by Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Zingers, better stock up now." [Editor's note: A whole bunch of users submitted this news. I worry about our readership's cholesterol levels.]

674 comments

  1. Zombieland... by broginator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tallahassee said to be inconsolable.

    --
    s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
    1. Re:Zombieland... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not to worry:

      Just buy up your local food store's supply. They'll stay 'fresh' for centuries!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Zombieland... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Poylsorbate 80

      America 0

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Zombieland... by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      It is a conspiracy. This is, obviously, the first step in zombie world domination.

    4. Re:Zombieland... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Zombies schmombies...
      This makes the Y2k Family Guy episode of plausibility a near zero margin.
      Now I have to rework my post-apocalyptic plans :(.

    5. Re:Zombieland... by broginator · · Score: 0

      ...said the Anonymous Coward.

      --
      s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
    6. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks for the insight, Broginator. If that is your real name.

    7. Re:Zombieland... by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Not to worry:

      Just buy up your local food store's supply. They'll stay 'fresh' for centuries!

      Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date, and pretty soon, life's little Twinkie gauge is going to go... empty.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    8. Re:Zombieland... by dywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You couldnt even leave the twinkie post free of your BS????
      GIVE IT A REST DUDE!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't have happend if people stopped caring about foods they eat.
      This wouldn't have happend if the bakers union had conceeded.
      This wouldn't have happend if Hostess had better management.

      There are many reasons why this has happened and like many things it really was a confluence of events. To distort it to point to only one aspect to support your political viewpoint is assinie. I suppose you think Migeul Cabrea won MVP because of Americans voted to reafirm Obama's war on white people.

    10. Re:Zombieland... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's over. Your guy won. You can relax now; you no longer have to be afraid that somebody on the Internet is wrong.

    11. Re:Zombieland... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Oh, snap!

    12. Re:Zombieland... by Nadaka · · Score: 0

      There will always be someone wrong on the internet.

    13. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sgt. Al Powell is still looking for some for his wife.

    14. Re:Zombieland... by masmullin · · Score: 4, Funny

      There will always be someone wrong on the internet.

      This is an incorrect statement.

    15. Re:Zombieland... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or a long series of unions taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie till not enough was left to run the business on. This is not the first company and will not be the last to have to pay more to unions (payroll and pensions) then they take in. When will people realize that what unions stood for back in the 1920s, 1930, and 1940s is not what the unions due today. There are federal and state laws for what the unions wanted. Bravo unions you got safety laws, working hours, and others made into law. The claim that if unions went away today those laws would go away is totally wrong. That is what many people think. If unions would go away, companies would force their workers to work 20 hours a day 7 days a week for 30 hours of pay at a really low rate. Their pensions would go away. That is not going to happen. Unions keep on repeating this to get people to vote the union way.

    16. Re:Zombieland... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Not to worry:

      Just buy up your local food store's supply.

      Probably too late. The baker's union has been on strike for quite a while, so supplies were already low. Now, with this news coming out earlier today, there was already a rush to buy up the few left on the shelf.

      When I was a kid, we would swap stuff from our lunchboxes, and nothing could beat a Twinkie. It was worth at least two Ho-Ho's.

    17. Re:Zombieland... by medcalf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And Mitt Romney has what to do with this? The PE backers of Hostess are large Dem contributors.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    18. Re:Zombieland... by jackjumper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But Hostess' CEO got a 300% raise, so it's all good, right?

    19. Re:Zombieland... by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

      "You've been Broginated!"

    20. Re:Zombieland... by chronokitsune3233 · · Score: 2

      I was a chocolate loving kid and still am, though I'm no longer a child. As a result, Ho-Ho's were my preferred choice.

      You can have my Twinkie.

      I want my chocolate!

      --
      I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
    21. Re:Zombieland... by alva_edison · · Score: 0

      Except the pension thing is true, any company that can get rid of pensions has done so. 401K's are a very poor substitute.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    22. Re:Zombieland... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That or 25 days. Whichever comes first.

    23. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's different.

      Leave it with me, I'll get back to you with why that's different; I just need to think up a reason.

    24. Re:Zombieland... by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      A business must balance the interests of all stakeholders in order to be sustainable. If you cant balance the interests of your workers with the interests of other stakeholders then your business is doomed to fail.

      In any case, activism in the unions usually is a sign of problems elsewhere in the industry. The real problem is a market shift away from these products, and management not being able to create new products to remain viable.

    25. Re:Zombieland... by destinyland · · Score: 5, Informative

      Think aboout what "cuts to pensions" means. You work until you're too old to work, and then Mr. Twinkie Man tells you "We actually CAN'T pay you what we'd promised to." The money you have literally spent your whole life expecting...

      By the way, last time the same union agreed to a benefits cut, Hostess then welched on their word and went back into Chapter 11 hearings anyways...

      http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/why-didnt-hostess-workers-believe-the-threats/2012/11/16/0638138e-302f-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    26. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right-wing nonsense. As is the original text. The Bakers Union is not shutting the company down. Wall Street vulture capitalists are.

    27. Re:Zombieland... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or a long series of unions taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie till not enough was left to run the business on.

      Your point of view is directly contradicted by reality, as the average American wage has stayed mostly flat since the late 60s and union membership has never been lower.

      The claim that if unions went away today those laws would go away is totally wrong. That is what many people think. If unions would go away, companies would force their workers to work 20 hours a day 7 days a week for 30 hours of pay at a really low rate. Their pensions would go away. That is not going to happen. Unions keep on repeating this to get people to vote the union way.

      The economy has grown in leaps and bounds since [arbitrary date], the stock market is higher than ever, unions are weaker than ever,
      pensions are almost entirely nonexistent, and out of all that wealth... workers have been paid just enough to keep up with inflation.
      Oh yea, worker productivity has almost doubled over the same period of time and black lung is making a comeback in amongst coal miners.

      Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't the unions.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    28. Re:Zombieland... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Not to worry:

      Just buy up your local food store's supply. They'll stay 'fresh' for centuries!

      Worry. Your local food store's supply has already been bought.

    29. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think aboout what "cuts to pensions" means. You work until you're too old to work, and then Mr. Twinkie Man tells you "We actually CAN'T pay you what we'd promised to." The money you have literally spent your whole life expecting...

      Actually Mr. Twinkie Man didn't tell them that, the government did. The Union contract in place was put there by the government, not by Hostess. Why are they striking against the people still trying to pay them instead of the court that screwed them?

    30. Re:Zombieland... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Frozen Twinkie, slized
      Chocolate fondue

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:Zombieland... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      401Ks are a vastly superior alternative. Pensions are dependent upon a company's success, and unless the pension is completely out of the control of the company (and it never is), the pensioner is completely dependent on the company not folding or raiding the pension fund. Pensions are an anachronism. Most 401Ks have options that allow at least some employee control of the account, which allows the account owner to steer money away from obviously defective investments.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    32. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitt Romney has as much to do with this as Barrack Obama, and that is nothing at all. I was just responding to the asshat.

    33. Re:Zombieland... by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

      Why would this leave Tallahassee inconsolable?

      --
      'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
    34. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when Democrats try to replace them mass starvation will follow.

    35. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nothing of value was lost. Next!

    36. Re:Zombieland... by dark_requiem · · Score: 1
    37. Re:Zombieland... by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      Tastykake krimpets taste a lot better. I think that "competition" they speak of involves products not made exclusively out of sugar.

    38. Re:Zombieland... by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      Keep your damned twinkie to yourself!

    39. Re:Zombieland... by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      I thought that was the symbol for a barbershop quartet. ~ ~ ~ ~

    40. Re:Zombieland... by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      I am "entitled" to my social security because I PAID for it. You do understand that concept?

    41. Re:Zombieland... by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      This wouldn't have happened if we weren't embargoing their main ingredient from Cuba.

    42. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I paid for it.

    43. Re:Zombieland... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      When will people realize that what unions stood for back in the 1920s, 1930, and 1940s is not what the unions due today.

      No pun intended..?

    44. Re:Zombieland... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't yank his internet access just to prove a point.

    45. Re:Zombieland... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The expiration date is just to make you go "Oh, these are almost expired, I better finish these off and buy a new batch".

      It's like canned food, it'll last until after the sun expands and absorbs Earth.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    46. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and we can balance the national budget with a "tax the rich" strategy...

      These ideas only work for people who do not grasp ratios, and big numbers...

      Yeah, some executive jerk might get 200K instead of the 60K he might be worth... so if you cut him back by 140K (and convince him to stay in the dead-end company, putting up with all the crap from all the unions that infested that company) you get enough money to save... perhaps 3 jobs. Sorry... the company fails because the huge union costs are still there... everybody still losses his job

      Yeah, there are some jerks like Bill Gates and Steve Balmer, Larry Ellison and Warren Buffet... But if you tax them at 100%, you can only cover Obama's new spending for a few months... and then what?

      The "go after the evil rich guys" rhetoric works for riling-up the Democrat base and/or Union members... but mathematically it dos not actually work, because there are just so few in relation to the non-rich. The real money in the US is always in the middle class, which is why Obama insists on taxing all the way down to an income of $250K (which gets him a HUGE number of upper-middle class small business people) rather than, for example, $1M (which would just net him the people most imagine when the word "rich" is used)

    47. Re:Zombieland... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Load of crap. The corporate executives screwed around debt, inflated executive salaries, enormous golden parachutes and of course emptying out the pension fund. Now they forced a dispute, rushed the company in bankruptcy making sure executives get to cash in their golden parachutes and after everything has been sold off, finding there is not enough left for the the pension fund forcing yet another government bail out. Talk about rinse and repeat, this little manoeuvre has been repeated again and again by vulture capitalists. Unions are the cure and that cure needs to be applied across the board to ensure vulture capitalist can't just jump from corporation to corporation to repeat the same scam over and over again.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    48. Re:Zombieland... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      "cuts to pensions" is a far sight better than "no pensions."

      The problem is that pensions themselves are allowed to exist - it's too tempting to either under-fund them (counting on "catching up" in the out years) or raid the huge pile of money that's not doing anything (yet...).

      The employee's compensation should be paid within a reasonable time from when they do the work and they should be responsible for distributing it between retirement and other purposes, and the tax structure should be such that it does not encourage employees and employers to get into arrangements as fraught with moral hazards as an employer provided pension system.

      A former employee should not have to be punished if their company falters 20 years after they did the work....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    49. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i get astonished every day at how average Slashdoter is bad at math, i do not even want to know how bad average American is at math
      their CEO gets $2'550'000/year
      that is $212'500/month (sorry here in Europe we usually get salary monthly so its easier to work in this format, also i HATE your miles and gallons we see on imported products and in online stores can you please switch to metrics like rest of normal world)
      i read this company has 18'000 workers, so if CEO got payed ZERO instead that would increase monthly salary of each employee only $11.8 i do not really see point in complaining here, except if you think it would be better if those bakers got pay cut of 20% and than immediately pay rise of $11.8 each (that is if CEO got 100% pay cut and earned ZERO), somehow i think they would still be unsatisfied

    50. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be someone wrong on the internet.

      This is an incorrect statement.

      I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

    51. Re:Zombieland... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Or a long series of unions taking a bigger and bigger piece of the pie till not enough was left to run the business on.

      Your point of view is directly contradicted by reality, as the average American wage has stayed mostly flat since the late 60s and union membership has never been lower.

      The claim that if unions went away today those laws would go away is totally wrong. That is what many people think. If unions would go away, companies would force their workers to work 20 hours a day 7 days a week for 30 hours of pay at a really low rate. Their pensions would go away. That is not going to happen. Unions keep on repeating this to get people to vote the union way.

      The economy has grown in leaps and bounds since [arbitrary date], the stock market is higher than ever, unions are weaker than ever,
      pensions are almost entirely nonexistent, and out of all that wealth... workers have been paid just enough to keep up with inflation.
      Oh yea, worker productivity has almost doubled over the same period of time and black lung is making a comeback in amongst coal miners.

      Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't the unions.

      Up until the Regan era, there was a very strong need for unions. Unions were there to insure workers were protected by forced safety standards, by insuring reasonable salaries, and by taking a strong cut out of union wages to pay for union management (leaders). With universal health care, and the global economy, global unions are a unnecessary overhead. Unions should be worker committees, and these committees should have shares in the company. If the company does poorly the shares do poorly, and if the company does well, the shares do well. Worker committees owning shares forces a balance between what the company can share as benefits and what it needs to survive. A job at 20% pay reduction is better than no job at all, and a job where the worker committees expenses are covered by dividends is a win-win-win.

      Perhaps I am being overly simplistic about the non-need for international unions.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    52. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twinkies mass extinction.

      Culture 1
      America Nil.

      Now Just American cheese, beer & MC'ds etc to go.

    53. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet in many many companies there is no such thing as a pension like what unions demand. Instead people contribute to their own 401k or IRA plans and deal with their own retirement planning. Union members bitch when they're asked to take a 'pension' cut because heaven-forbid they have to plan for themselves and now they're all going to take a 100% pay cut. But not to worry, Obama will probably swoop in an demand all sales of the assets be first given to the union pensions instead of the creditors just like he did with the auto workers.

    54. Re:Zombieland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never make mistrakes!

    55. Re:Zombieland... by GNious · · Score: 1

      Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't the unions.

      As a Dane (person from Denmark) I can inform you that one of the things that are rotten in the state of Denmark, is, in fact, the labour unions...

  2. Fear not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the teamsters reputation, the bakers' leadership could soon change....

    1. Re:Fear not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the current debacle, I would have to say that would by and large end up being an improvement.

  3. Run on Twinkies? by alphatel · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't Reddit. Slashdot users have no comradery or instinct to join together to achieve goals.

    2. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope the company will go to auction I believe and somebody more competent (hopefully) will buy it. I do feel bad for the termed employees though, hopefully something can be worked out. I think hostess confused the USA with S. Africa.

    3. Re:Run on Twinkies? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Or bail them out?

      Why the hell not! I'll make the argument that Twinkie production is vital from a national security standpoint! Knowing that there won't be Twinkies to come home to is going to be a major blow to troop morale! So, everybody, while you still can buy a box of Twinkies and give it to the USO or other organization. For the troops. For America!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Run on Twinkies? by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Heck, France blocked Pepsi buying Yopiat (yogurt) because of “national interest”. I would argue that Twinkies are more American then yogurt is French.

    5. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are alternate spellings

    6. Re:Run on Twinkies? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Lol, at this time there are five signatures.

      Yes... five. zero five point zero.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Run on Twinkies? by drkim · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or bail them out?

      We must bail them out.

      They are too tasty to fail.

    8. Re:Run on Twinkies? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Financial reality is not influenced by how competent someone is or is not.

      If the Teamsters accountants say the company will die if the strike continues, then you have to know it's on its last legs.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? Looking online, I only see one of them, and it's the correction.

    10. Re:Run on Twinkies? by swilly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first result in Google for camradery is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comradery. The first definition is camaraderie, so it looks like we have two valid spellings of the same word.

      It's also currently in the top 1% of lookups on the site, so the slashdot effect is still alive and well.

    11. Re:Run on Twinkies? by EdIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First, I would think yogurt is Greek.

      Secondly, damn right Twinkies are American. Nothing is more fitting for the current American image than Twinkies being sold in Walmarts....

    12. Re:Run on Twinkies? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Yoghurt is of unknown origin, according to Wikipedia, but possibly from modern-day India or Iran.

      It's not Greek, however: The oldest writings mentioning yogurt are attributed to Pliny the Elder, who remarked that certain "barbarous nations" knew how "to thicken the milk into a substance with an agreeable acidity".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoghurt#History

    13. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dude, they were being paid excellent salaries. A local station interviewed one of the local employees -- he was bitching for being asked to eat an 8% cut, but made $108k a year. Mixing garlic butter.

      Tell me another job that pays $108k + benefits to mix garlic butter. It's not like the proles were starving. Clearly they had problems with the management compensation, but that doesn't automatically make the union golden in this situation.

    14. Re:Run on Twinkies? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I might have signed it, but then all of those petitions would get even less respect and taken less seriously than they already are.

      As it is, the whole thing is a joke, but I am not going to cheapen the process for voting for something stupid anyways.

    15. Re:Run on Twinkies? by BadPirate · · Score: 1

      Too big to fail?

      --
      - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    16. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should submit this to slashdot, as this is surely stuff that matters

    17. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the banks and the auto industry they are too full of shit to fail.

    18. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re. yogurt: some bulgarians would like to have a word with you.
      these guys say *they* invented yogurt, pointing to the (latin) name of a bacteria used in the process.

      p.s.: not sure if all bulgarians feel the same. those i know are versions of the father character from "my big fat greek wedding" (just replace 'greek' with 'bulgarian').

    19. Re:Run on Twinkies? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Problem is that the people buying the brand will build their factory in Mexico or China.

    20. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would rather NOT bail them out, if company cant earn enough money that means business is not worth doing better let them sell assets and those human resources can be better used in another company as hairdressers or supermarket register workers or something else that is more valuable to other people/makes more money

      now to think of it why is there not "vote against" option in that petition?

    21. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i do not see problem, people from china are cheaper, they should get job

    22. Re:Run on Twinkies? by Meski · · Score: 1

      A cunning ploy by the NY mayor to get people to eat more healthfully? First, they came for the > 16oz soft drinks...

  4. WTF!?!?!? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Talk about unexpected events! I would expect the investment to be rolling in with the recent wins for pot legalization. I mean, isn't that the old joke? If pot were ever legalized, Hostess would clean up?

    What will the people of colorado do?

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:WTF!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Serious answer: company resources (such as recipes and product names) will be sold off in the liquidation. A competitior might even buy the Hostess name as well as all related product names and only change the small print on the boxes indicating the owning company.

      Silly answer: Stockpile! Those things have a half-life of 2000 years, fill the fallout shelther with them!

    2. Re:WTF!?!?!? by caffiend666 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the response to Hostesses brown cream filled 'blunties' was ~slow~. They were next going to consider a delivery service.

      --
      Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
    3. Re:WTF!?!?!? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They'll eat carrot sticks and like it!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:WTF!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weed legalization would mean expansion of snack foods everywhere. Every forecast was certain. Hostess shares were bound to make a fortune.
      ~~~ Lord Grantham

    5. Re:WTF!?!?!? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Silly answer: Stockpile! Those things have a half-life of 2000 years, fill the fallout shelther with them!

      what do you mean silly?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:WTF!?!?!? by masmullin · · Score: 2

      It's silly because everyone has already stockpiled 2000 years of twinkies... OBVIOUSLY.

    7. Re:WTF!?!?!? by compro01 · · Score: 2

      Import from Canada. Sapurto will be happy to provide you with your Hostess-brand nutritionally deficient snack foods. They don't currently make Twinkies, but I suspect they may start to do so in the near future.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:WTF!?!?!? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Because they actually go bad a few weeks after purchase.

    9. Re:WTF!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's "saputo". no "r" in there.

    10. Re:WTF!?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect the investment to be rolling in with the recent wins for pot legalization.

      Pot hasn't been legalized. It was decriminalized under State law in two states, it's still illegal under Federal Law.

    11. Re:WTF!?!?!? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I said wins for legalization not of. That is the way things are going, and that was obvious years ago when public attitude changed, its just really a matter of time now.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not.

    I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

    1. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably that the people at the top were getting raises in the millions of dollars while the "idiots" were having pay cuts thrust on them?

    2. Re:GO UNIONS! by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I'll agree that unions can be quite a thorn in the side of effective business (they once had a lot of benefit, these days though, they seem more of a lamprey), when the company says this...

      Citing high [...] increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods [...]

      I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway. If you can't figure out "Hm... people want healthy food, maybe I should make healthy food" or deal with competition in a mostly capitalistic environment, then you probably shouldn't be in business.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:GO UNIONS! by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The union was probably thinking "We already made massive consessions, now the CEO needs to take a pay cut and the private equity groups that saddled us with debt should be facing a lawsuit."

      But go ahead, blame the workers. I mean, who needs employees, right?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:GO UNIONS! by stokessd · · Score: 1

      Hey do you work in my company?!? I'm the third cube on the right at the top of the stairs.

    5. Re:GO UNIONS! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

      They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

      If hostess can't properly market and sell products then they should go bankrupt.

      I've seen this happen numerous times: a company starts doing poorly, they ask their employees to take cuts. The employees take cuts. The company keeps doing worse, the employees even sometimes start working for free "don't worry we'll turn this around soon." A few months later the company declares bankruptcy and everybody gets fired anyway and the company refuses back pay.

      Hostess could have sold to another company which wanted to buy them but they said no. As the article mentions, Pringles was doing poorly, it sold off and now it's incredibly successful because it got new management and marketing.

      I haven't eaten a hostess product in years. When I think hostess I think truck stop 10 year old Styrofoam. I can't remember the last time I saw someone eat a Hostess product. Cutting wages isn't going to help. The sooner its property and assets are sold off to someone who can either reinvigorate the brand or put its kitchens to better use the better imo.

    6. Re:GO UNIONS! by Fulminata · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were probably thinking about previous concessions they'd made only to see that money go to executive bonuses and attorney's fees instead of the capital improvements that the money was supposed to be spent on. http://www.vendingmarketwatch.com/news/10829363/bctgm-union-responds-to-hostess-facility-closings

      They were probably also thinking of the 300% pay raise that the CEO gave himself while preparing for bankruptcy, along with the lesser raises other executives got at the same time.

      I'm still not convinced this was a smart move on the part of the Union, but I can certainly understand what they were thinking!

    7. Re:GO UNIONS! by aicrules · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.

    8. Re:GO UNIONS! by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point of striking unions is to twist the arm of the company. Well, in this case, the arm broke off and now none of them will have jobs. The CEO is out of a job, too, after all.

      How does the story about the Golden Goose go again?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    9. Re:GO UNIONS! by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

      They could have done that at any time if that's what they truly wanted. They thought they were playing a negotiating game ... it wasn't, but they lost anyway.

    10. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, whole wheat twinkies, tasteless garbage shit. That'll sell.

    11. Re:GO UNIONS! by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      >> I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

      > They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

      Then why not quit and go work for another company?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They were thinking that they don't care if they kill a company, because making any concessions at all means that they're in a weaker bargaining position with any other companies.

      The lesson is clear: if you want to run a business, do it in a right-to-work state, or offshore. Hostess would probably be doing fine if they'd moved all production to Mexico ten years ago and trucked the product in.

    13. Re:GO UNIONS! by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Classic Monopoly / Monopsony situation. When there is only 1 buyer (of labor) and only 1 seller (of labor), and negotiations break down, there are not a lot of options left on the table.

      The company has only a single ace – declare bankruptcy. This will void all of the contracts and the bankruptcy judge can sort things out. The union has only a single ace card – call the company’s bluff.

      It is like a giant game of chicken. Compare this to Somalia Pirates or your favorite sports franchise. Where is the hockey season this year? These deals are hard to do.

    14. Re:GO UNIONS! by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      You really can't recall the last time you saw someone eat Wonder bread? Beefsteak Rye? GoodHealth? Holsum? Bread du Jour? Tocsom?

      While news stories are focusing on Twinkies, Hostess had a massive slice (har, har) of the US bread market.

    15. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of any of those except Wonder Bread, and no, I've never actually seen someone pick a loaf of Wonder Bread from the shelf.

    16. Re:GO UNIONS! by skids · · Score: 2

      They had no intention of staying in business. Wall Street entities that were planning on selling Hostess as scrap decided they'd try to milk some PR out of the whole process.

    17. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet he's on the boards of several other companies, just like every other CEO. I'm sure he will do fine.

    18. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand.

      They "could", but should they? Why should a business that makes something that isn't in demand stay in business?

      But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.

      What are you talking about? The people have been taking cuts in their freedom and rights for many many years. The average American is a spineless coward (and I know cowards, just look at my name) who is too scared to stand up for themselves.

      Say, how many Americans are flying home for Thanksgiving? Give my regards to your TSA agents. I'm sure they can hear you even when you're bent over.

      And the capcha word is "frisked", nice!

    19. Re:GO UNIONS! by Bugs42 · · Score: 1

      Which means the net impact of this on the union members is them being out of a job, and the impact on the CEO effectively nothing. So what exactly did the union accomplish here aside from screwing themselves?

      --
      Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
    20. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the entire executive board of Ford Motor Co. forfeited all of their salaries and bonuses and stock options for 1 year, they could raise every single Ford employee's salary by 18 cents per year (which is to say zero, because nobody would get a 1/3 penny per paycheck salary boost). I wonder how that works for Hostess with 18,500 workers... $3.5-$4 million seems to be roughly the previous (high-dollar) CEO's total compensation but it was lowered for the new guy in March 2012 ... so if the CEO took zero compensation, he could pay everyone $216.21 more per year, or $8.31 per pay check, 10.3 cents more per hour.

      I have a high deductible healthcare plan that costs me $12 per paycheck twice a month ($24/mo), the cheapest option, and my employer pays the other 75% so per paycheck my health insurance costs $48. The Hostess CEO's salary couldn't pay for my health insurance. If the entire executive board cut all compensation, they might be able to pay for that kind of healthcare. Do note that I'm fiscally responsible--I keep about 50%-80% of my after-taxes salary after my mandatory expenses--so the risk of $1500 deductibles is not a problem for me and there's a $3500 per year limit including deductibles on my plan... it's a good plan if you're only concerned with potential catastrophic events like broken legs, major surgery, etc. and you don't mind paying full price for all prescriptions, doctor's visits, treatments that cost under $1500, etc,

      It's a weak plan if you're a family with maintenance drugs, because you'll wind up paying full costs for everything with a limit of $7000 per annum, which means instead of paying $40 for something like a 2 month's supply of Synthroid you wind up paying $120 per month. $240/year turns into $1480/year. Have a kid and a spouse and you're probably talking about $1000-$2000/year turning into $6000-$7000; though as your healthcare costs start maximizing with nickle-and-dime (i.e. cheap doctor's visits), it starts becoming a minor hit: the deductibles on a normal healthcare plan pile up indefinitely, you wind up spending $6500 on a good healthcare plan (including your insurance premium) and $6800 on a crap catastrophic plan.

      Note that the out-of-pocket maximum (you hit this and you pay $0 for the rest of the year) doesn't include deductibles in a normal plan, but for a high-deductible plan it does include deductibles--your total expenses can exceed your insurance premium plus your out-of-pocket maximum with a regular plan, but cannot exceed those figures with a high-deductible plan. You can also use a health savings account to pay all your healthcare expenses from pre-tax dollars, without taking the risk of a flexible spending account (remaining balance at the end of each year is forfeited in an FSA, but not in an HSA).

      Not a bad plan for me because I'm not bad at managing my money. Even when I dip (I do, right now I'm buying a house and I'm paying off debt, so I'm going to max out my credit cards for maximum capitalization and then buy the house and use remaining money and future salary to pay off the credit card debt), I can get personal loans to the tune of $1500 to afford my medical expenses and I am fully capable of paying down the maximum $3500 within 1 year. Poorer families and those with less fiscal prowess would be better with a solid healthcare plan that minimizes risk at additional, but leveled (I.e. not suddenly $1500 at once, but rather $100 more a month), cost. These are more expensive.

      But yeah think about it. The executives can put a couple more dollars in your pocket every month by giving up 100% of their lavish salaries and bonuses. They sure as hell can't fund your pension that way. Why do people always demand the executives take salary cuts so they can make everything better? Like if these oil companies with multi-hundred-billion-dollars profit and executives making $500M in bonuses a year stopped paying their executives, they could magically solve all the world's problems? They'd have 0.001% as much mo

    21. Re:GO UNIONS! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      sometimes that poorer performance, that reduced bottom line, happens because of the demands of the union. higher pay, additional benefits, it has to come from somewhere. and its possible, it actually a lot, that the unions themselves create the toxic overhead that kills a company.

      in this case the company is trying to recover from the recession like everyone else. they asked employees to take some concessions now, to be repaid later, to help the company get through and profitable again. and the one union basically said "screw you". and now the company is going under, and the union's members willbe without a job.

      and if i was in that union, i would be kicking the ass of every union rep involved on my way out of the union because they are stupid.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hostess isn't/wasn't a golden goose. It was a cancer ridden death swan riddled with bird herpes.

    23. Re:GO UNIONS! by Diss+Champ · · Score: 1

      >> I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

      > They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

      Then why not quit and go work for another company?

      They want unemployment benefits until they find a job they like.

    24. Re:GO UNIONS! by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.

      hey if the unions have to take a cut, the management should too, but the truth there was they were getting a 80% RAISE. If we want to be 100% honest here, we should drop the anti-union rhetoric because the truth is they had nothing to do with it. Hostess is owned by a group of venture capitalist firms who put their own people in charge of the company and completely tore it up from the inside out. They eliminated their distribution network, and increased profits by dismantling production to the point that it was impossible to go forward, then used the Unions as a scape goat as they go to scrap the whole company. The Unions had nothing to do with what happened as much of this was done before their contract even went up, including the scrapping of 9 of the factories. Anyone saying the Unions did this is buying the PR line and not looking at FCC filings for the last 3 chapter 11s they issued. I mean they had 7 CEOs in TEN YEARS from Christs sake.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    25. Re:GO UNIONS! by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were going to be out of a job anyway, so accepting further cuts would just trap them further in wage slavery; then when the axe did fall, their hourly rate would be even lower for when they applied for unemployment. Hostess has been in bankruptcy twice in the last couple years.

      Hostess followed the Bain model: private investors load it with debt, taking that money out in fees to themselves; force workers to make crippling concessions so they can take more fees out; liquidate the company to suck the corpse dry.

      The Baker's Union decided not to cooperate in their own rape. The surprise here is that the Teamsters rolled over and said "you'll like it better if you can't hear me whimpering because I'm facing away from you."

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    26. Re:GO UNIONS! by danpbrowning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm still not convinced this was a smart move on the part of the Union, but I can certainly understand what they were thinking!

      Management and their crony lawyers could have given up their entire salary and worked pro-bono all year, and it *still* wouldn't have been enough to bring the company out of the red. Employee salaries and pensions, however, are probably at *least* a billion dollars per year (if it's only a third of revenue, which I would guess is on the low end). So making cuts to salaries/pensions would actually do something.

      Your article doesn't have total amounts, but let's be generous and say that management gave themselves and their crony lawyers an extra $10 million per year. Sure, it's an insult and a slap in the face, but it's not enough to really impact the bottom line significantly.

      If $10 million in management excess is the reason the union employees voted the way they did, then they cut off their nose to spite their face.

      --
      Daniel
    27. Re:GO UNIONS! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does the story about the Golden Goose go again?

      you mean the one where the bosses get the gold and you get goosed?

      that one?

      many of us know THAT one pretty well.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    28. Re:GO UNIONS! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway. If you can't figure out "Hm... people want healthy food, maybe I should make healthy food" or deal with competition in a mostly capitalistic environment, then you probably shouldn't be in business.

      If they were less profitable than in the past then there would have been changes they could have made, like laying off a percent of their workforce or closing several factories or bakeries. It sounds like the unions didn't want them to do that, though. So they went back and proposed an 8% wage cut for the workers that would gradually scale back up, and the bakers union went on strike. So now they don't get anything. The people running the business will turn out fine though, they will sell the various brands to someone else and give themselves a nice going-away present, while the unions probably won't get anything (which I'm actually fine with).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    29. Re:GO UNIONS! by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're just totally wrong on the facts.

      All the unions had already made significant concessions in the two prior bankruptcies. No one was asking for more. They'd all taken wage, pension and benefit cuts repeatedly, and management couldn't do anything except give themselves raises.

      If you were in that union, you'd have already had two haircuts and been asked for a third. How many times would you let the company bend you over before you said "enough?"

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    30. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stood up for their rights and beliefs and didn't let a bunch of yellow-bellied, lilly-livered chickens like you talk them into living on their knees. Twinkie the kid died on his feet like a man.

      Do tell us? What is it like having no testicles what-so-ever?

    31. Re:GO UNIONS! by PoolOfThought · · Score: 2

      Doesn't look like these folks will have a 40 hour work week for long... unless you consider filing for unemployment a "job".

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    32. Re:GO UNIONS! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Ditto to the guy above me. They're not going bankrupt because they're so obscenely successful.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    33. Re:GO UNIONS! by PoolOfThought · · Score: 1

      I know who doesn't need employees! A company that doesn't exist! Or one that's in bankruptcy...

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    34. Re:GO UNIONS! by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The CEO, Greg Rayburn, cut his and the three other top executives salary cut to $1 this year. How much more of a concession do you want?

      As for the private equity firm, Ripplewood Holdings is going to lose most, if not all of the $170 million investment it made in Hostess.

    35. Re:GO UNIONS! by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmm. Hostess Twinkies and milk.........

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    36. Re:GO UNIONS! by tatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you done the math? Hostess employs 18K people. Assuming they earn minimum wage, which varies between states so lets just assume its $8 hr, thats $148,000 an hour for salary. Or about $1.1 million per day on salary. Even if all of the executives are pulling $100M a year total, cutting the CEO salary to total of $1M total, would only pay the salaries of everyone else for about 3 months. At the end of it all, the total executive salary is a small portion of a multi-billion dollar company. There is a lot more problems than just a few executives making big bucks. I know it doesn't seem fair that one person makes millions and another doesn't. That doesn't mean that's the problem. It was the bakers union that went on strike. Even the other unions involved were upset with the bakers union for their strike for fear it would cause the company to collapse. So its not like this is just management vs union battle. This was one union making a decision that effected the entire company. This was one union ignoring a lot of other facts about the business.

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    37. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the entire executive board of Ford Motor Co. forfeited all of their salaries and bonuses and stock options for 1 year, they could raise every single Ford employee's salary by 18 cents per year (which is to say zero, because nobody would get a 1/3 penny per paycheck salary boost)

      It's true, when you take something large and then split it up into smaller portions, there is in fact a point where the discrepancy between the size of the original thing and the smaller portion can be used to make a point that the small thing is so small, who would ever want the big thing.. It's so small!!

    38. Re:GO UNIONS! by drkim · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...liquidate the company to suck the corpse dry.

      ...The Baker's Union decided not to cooperate in their own rape. The surprise here is that the Teamsters rolled over and said "you'll like it better if you can't hear me whimpering because I'm facing away from you."

      Not a comment on the accuracy or viewpoint of your post, but instead of 'corpse' and 'rape' analogies; wouldn't it be more appropriate to say, "...sucked the creamy cash filling out of the company..." or "...stuffed the unwilling Teamsters with dark chocolaty pudding..."

    39. Re:GO UNIONS! by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's much more than just "a cut"

      The contract Hostess wants to impose on BCTGM workers includes:

              -- An immediate 8 percent wage cut.

              -- Shifting 20 percent more of health care costs onto the workers (for some workers, this would mean an increased cost of $240 a month for medical insurance).

              -- Eliminating retiree Medigap insurance, which covers gaps in Medicare.

              -- Eliminating Pension Supplement to pay health and funeral costs.

              -- Closing an undisclosed 10 to 12 plants.

              -- Eliminating the eight-hour day, which would mean no time-and-a-half pay after eight hours per day.

      In addition, the company illegally froze pension contributions mandated under the contract for all of 2012, in violation of federal law. This is still being contested before the National Labor Relations Board.

      http://socialistworker.org/2012/11/15/hostess-workers-draw-a-line

    40. Re:GO UNIONS! by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.

      Maybe they shouldn't take a cut.

      I don't think -any- company is worth sacrificing your family's well being just to keep it afloat, especially if the guys at the top aren't willing to sharply cut their own salaries and bonuses. If the only way to keep a company alive is to give subsistence-or-worse wages and no benefits, then that company shouldn't exist.

      You seem to be under the assumption that the factory workers were living large and can afford to take a big cut.

      Hostess couldn't change with the times. They will be replaced by a leaner, hungrier, better company. That's the free market in action, and that's how it should work.

      And just about any company that uses a pension system should probably go down anyway. What a misguided retirement system! Now if only I could convince my state to do the same.

    41. Re:GO UNIONS! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0

      Wha? Facts? Figures that don't fit into little ideological boxes?

      Son, you are a pilgrim in an unholy land.

    42. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hostess is $1 billion n debt, and has already filed bankruptcy twice. They are screwed no matter what...cutting a few million dollars of executive salaries isn't going to help, and neither is negotiating concessions with the union. But Twinkies will not stop being made--the company will sell off its brands to someone like Pepsi or Nabisco.

    43. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Independently verifiable facts nonwithstanding, I refuse to believe anything said in your post due to its lack of blaming progressives. No up votes for you.

    44. Re:GO UNIONS! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      The problem is, the executives have an incentive to lower the salaries, make working conditions worse, reduce the quality and pocket the "savings" by paying themselves bonuses. After a few cycles of this, CEOs end up with tens of millions per year, workers are back in 19th century as far as conditions and salary is concerned, and company produces worthless crap.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    45. Re:GO UNIONS! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Then why not quit and go work for another company?

      Because there probably aren't many jobs where they live. And a massive expensive factory/bakery is cheaper to 'retool' for a similar product. If someone buys out Hostess then they'll probably keep making the same product under new management. While people talk about employment being the be-all-end-all there is a point where it no longer makes sense to work. If I'm making less than I need to pay my bills and put food on the table then I have to look for a new job anyway.

      Health foods are what are selling well. If I worked in a Twinkie factory and it could potentially get bought out by a successful business like Nature's Valley then there would be some down-time but the factory would be creating a product with a future and presumably a company that can pay me a good wage. Get the bloated old dying carcass out of the way so that someone new can use their facilities.

    46. Re:GO UNIONS! by emho24 · · Score: 1

      I have to question if they could have stayed in business anyway.

      You have obviously never been to my home state of Oklahoma. Bacon, mayo, Twinkies, and sugar drinks make up the entire food pyramid.

      --
      You must gather your party before venturing forth.
    47. Re:GO UNIONS! by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so if the CEO took zero compensation, he could pay everyone $216.21 more per year, or $8.31 per pay check, 10.3 cents more per hour.

      I haven't run your numbers, but even if you're correct, assuming that the workers are just making it on current pay checks (probably not) then $216 per year means that the kids can have a Christmas, or you can go to the movies once in a while, or eat pizza or something "luxurious".

      If Hostess was being run as a viable business, instead of being bleed dry by the current owners, there would be money to pay the employees reasonably. It's not the unions, it's the leeches.

      You have the same whining going on at Papa John's where the CEO John Schnatter claims that to "Obamacare" forcing him actually to treat his employees reasonably and provide health insurance will cost $5 to $8 million for insuring more workers would mean 10 to 14 cents a pizza. Assuming that's true, then Schnatter's $2.7 million compensation package personally accounts for about 5 cents per pizza.

      It's not really an issue of money, it's a matter of control. The bosses piss on the workers and that's "free market". The workers organize to try and get some respect and a living wage, that a slave revolt.

    48. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't speak for the validity of your claim, but I have little doubt in believing it. This type of long term destruction for short term gain has become standard operating practice for many American companies. This is one of the reasons companies like AMD are suffering and stuggling with their future.

      While I'm very conflicted about unions in general, unions are frequently blamed for what is actually corporate pillaging by their executives. More often than not, the same is true for American Airlines, whenver they are in financial trouble. Mismanagement is common.

    49. Re:GO UNIONS! by tatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. Destroying a company never benefits executives. Their compensation package includes rewards for improving a companyAnd that happens through many different facets of company's business. If your business can't be successful selling 100M twinkies a year because they are not selling, then you have to cut the quantities of twinkies made to what will be purchased by customers. If the company makes worthless crap then the company will not be in business.

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    50. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soon to be ex-CEO of Hostess increased his own salary by 300% before this last round of Chapter 11 for the express purpose of circumventing Bankruptcy rules against performance based bonuses. Fuck him & fuck you if you think that's a cool thing to do.

    51. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do, right now I'm buying a house and I'm paying off debt, so I'm going to max out my credit cards for maximum capitalization and then buy the house and use remaining money and future salary to pay off the credit card debt

      You are buying too much house. Those credit cards will crush you. I know, I was there. I got *lucky* on a stock bounce and was able to claw my way out of it. 0 debt now and most certainly no credit cards unless paid in full every month.

      Interest on a house for say a 150k house right now is about 8-10k per year. All mortgages are front loaded. The gov 'lets' you keep 3k of that.
      Interest on 20k (easier to get to than you think) of credit card debt is the about the same amount. Also non deductible.

      Credit cards have 15+% interest rates. Get out an excel spreadsheet and do the decay rate formula taught in highschool math to see what you will be paying and total amounts you will shell out.

      For example on mine I bought my house then immediately made a 5000 principal payment. Shaved off 5 years off the loan and 'saved' me nearly 50k. Very few investments would give you that ROI. I am enjoying that ROI now :) With nearly 80k in 'liquid assets'. From nearly 20k down in credit card debt and 150k of house payment to make. In under 5 years I turned it around. Do NOT give your money away in interest payments. You are pissing money away.

      Buy less house and 'ladder' yourself into a better one down the road.

    52. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above post is 100% fact free.

    53. Re:GO UNIONS! by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still, the exiting CEO Brian Driscoll taking $1.5 million on his way out, just last March, is kind of a slap in the face when he lead the company to the verge of bankruptcy. Also, executives got raises up to 80% in 2011. What's not fair is that management got raises while simultaneously doing a very poor job, axeing jobs, demanding wage cuts, and screwing over pensioners.

      The union striked, the company folded. That sucks. But the real failure here is with management. All this didn't happen over night. They've been headed here for a long time. And with...what... SEVEN CEO's in the last decade? Do you really think anyone has been steering the boat?

      Hey, sometimes companies fail. But when that line on the chart starts to encroach on the bottom line it shouldn't be just the workers that take the brunt of the hardship to keep it all afloat. Of course, when you ask a professional like a CEO to take a pay cut, they simply leave (with a bonus) and you have to hire another one. And so you have a death spiral as a procession of CEO fuck shit up. Heaven forbid we get a blue collar guy leading the company.

      Hostess also had the problem that they were a declining company that still had the burden of a larger company's pension plan. There's no good solution to that. The pension system doesn't work so well when the size of the company grows and shrinks.

    54. Re:GO UNIONS! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, and pensions are just fundamentally flawed for a company in decline... But is a 401(k) really better? How much do you trust stock brokers in NY with your future?

    55. Re:GO UNIONS! by berashith · · Score: 1

      while that list seems harsh, the workers would have had a lot more under that plan than they do now.

    56. Re:GO UNIONS! by berashith · · Score: 3, Informative

      they already declared bankruptcy. They had a judge give them permission under chapter 11 to impose changes to the contracts. Some of the laborers thought that this was a bluff, where the management was actually in good faith when they said they couldnt afford to live through a strike.

    57. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sadly for your precious union that was on strike has just screwed all of their members. With the liquidation those striking workers will not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Additionally, good luck trying to find another job that pays $20/hr with benefits in that line of work.

    58. Re:GO UNIONS! by tatman · · Score: 1

      Morally it freakin stinks and it sure doesnt seem right one guy can walk away with million dollar bonus while everyone else looses their jobs. Again, when I do the math, that $1.5M bonus is $83 to each of the remaining 18K employees--wouldn't have made one bit of difference. The company was failing. A huge pension plan, a market that is shrinking, management and unions that fail to work together. its a massive recipe for failure.

      --
      I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    59. Re:GO UNIONS! by sycodon · · Score: 2

      The News reports indicated that the firm that owns everything expects not not get any of its investment back.

      That's how it works...sometime you win (Staples) and sometimes you lose (Hostess)

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    60. Re:GO UNIONS! by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Because they as individuals own homes, have families, established roots, and don't want to live as wandering gypsies.
      Because they collectivly, the union, work at THESE plants/factories/bakeries? (do they bake twinkies? I thought they were just extruded). Unless you want them to organize some sort of mass exoduse, the bakers union serves the people working at the bakery. Killing the old boss to get a new boss IS how they go work for another company.

    61. Re:GO UNIONS! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      No Job = Biggest Cut.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    62. Re:GO UNIONS! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      They were going to be out of a job anyway

      Not in the case that they agreed to what the company wanted to pay them. Then they just would have all been paid a bit less, with SOME of them out of jobs (as a few more plants were to be closed).

      Now the union has also lost a lot of dues paying members too.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    63. Re:GO UNIONS! by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I didn't say the product wasn't in demand, I said it wasn't AS in demand. Less demand means you must shift production of supply down to meet demand or lower cost of product to the point the demand rises again. Either of those require a cut in production costs. Hostess hasn't cut anyone's freedom. They are all free to go find another job now. Freedom and rights that we have given up are a separate issue that I also disagree with strongly.

      As far as "should" they? That's up to them as the owners of the business. If they want to keep the business going, they would have to cut costs. They were unable to complete cost cutting and decided they had to shut down so as not to lose money.

    64. Re:GO UNIONS! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I have a high deductible healthcare plan that costs me $12 per paycheck twice a month ($24/mo), the cheapest option,

      You can kiss that goodby in 2014. Welcome to the $2500 minimum world.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    65. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to love all these MBAs who have time to weigh in on this on Slashdot.

      Oh...wait. It's not MBAs, it's moron geeks.

    66. Re:GO UNIONS! by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really?? So it's OK for the unions to have a contract, but not the CEO??? The unions have their negotiating team, and so does the CEO. Both negotiate to get the best deal they can, based on (perceived) market conditions for their skills. I'm sure if you walked up to your next employer, said you wanted a million bucks a year in salary, and they agreed ... you'd take it too! But you can't because there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people out there with similar skill sets that will do it for less.

      Chastising the CEO for having a contract that is overpriced while support a union contract that is overpriced is a bit hypocritical.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    67. Re:GO UNIONS! by Samalie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What it comes down to, is you're both right.

      Executive pay has gone fucking apeshit in comparison to worker pay. Its fucking pathetic. BUT...executive pay is NOT really a reason why companies fail. In the overall scheme of things, it amounts to dick/year in expenses.

      BUT - if management was expecting everyone to eat a 20% pay cut, they should eat the same dick too.

      That said, Hostess is a clusterfuck of a company. Their sales are shit, AND they were pillaged by a pair of VC firms to the tune of somewhere around $700 Million. That asspile of debt IS a contributing factor, although bluntly nobody is really buying that processed shit anymore either.

      The union...well, their blame is they ended up with 0% of their original pay instead of 80% of it. I can't say I blame the staff for not wanting to take a pay cut, but I'd also rather have a job.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    68. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CEO, Greg Rayburn, cut his and the three other top executives salary cut to $1 this year. How much more of a concession do you want?

      The Slashdot crowd wouldn't be happy unless the CEO was actually paying the company out of his own pocket for the privilege of working there. And even then, no matter how much he was paying them, it wouldn't be enough.

      I appreciate your effort to, you know, actually contribute to the conversation with real data. But you gotta' understand, this crowd is impervious to stuff like facts.

    69. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot it did them to say "enough" eh?

    70. Re:GO UNIONS! by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you seriously arguing that a CEO, leading a company into the ground would be treated unfairly by ONLY being paid $1 million per year? You're arguing that the handful of executives taking a pay cut to pay fully 1/4 of the other 18,000 salaries is a silly idea?

      Yeesh...

    71. Re:GO UNIONS! by PhxBlue · · Score: 2

      Management and their crony lawyers could have given up their entire salary and worked pro-bono all year, and it *still* wouldn't have been enough to bring the company out of the red.

      That might be so, but it would have at least shown that management's priorities were in the right place -- trying to take care of their people and their business instead of just lining their wallets.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    72. Re:GO UNIONS! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Too bad I used up my mod points earlier.

    73. Re:GO UNIONS! by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Hostess isn't/wasn't a golden goose. It was a cancer ridden death swan riddled with bird herpes.

      Thanks for that - LMFAO! Made my day that one did!

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    74. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If hostess can't properly market and sell products then they should go bankrupt.

      Hostess has revenue. They're selling a broad range of products including healthy foods.

      The problem with Hostess, like the auto companies before their bailouts, many municipalities, school districts, state governments, the postal system and so many others is they've accumulated pension obligations they can't afford. Union workers retiring earlier and earlier and living longer and longer. It's nothing to retire at 55 and live till 85. 30 years of retirement at 50-75-90% final pay.

      Institutions accumulate liabilities with time. One way to fix that is to dissolve the institution. That's what Obama did with GM and Chrysler when they 'fast-track' bankrupted both of them, gave the bond holders and the pensioners healthcare system (among others) a huge haircut and reformed under new corporate entities. That's what Hostess is doing now.

      The brands will be bought and the workforce reconstituted at lower cost, probably in Mexico. The books have to balance. Go be angry about it. Reality doesn't care.

    75. Re:GO UNIONS! by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It may not benefit them, but they STILL MAKE 7-figure salaries, even when they perform dismally poorly.

      So if one regards millions of dollars as sufficient, it really doesn't matter WHAT they do. They could (if they wanted to) simply use their job to carry out a bunch of personal vendettas, or political aims (like utterly destroying a local union). Especially if they don't feel like there is much of a chance to meet a specific performance bonus target, due to long-term structural or economic problems, there seems little incentive for them not to just shrug and move on.

      Now this CEO has a reputation as a Union-buster and is likely to be hired again by a company seeking to prevent unions from having control, even if he did nothing his entire tenure but thumb his nose at the unions. Unions at companies he runs in the future will be forced to respect him because he's clearly willing to sack the whole company, close hundreds of facilities and put entire towns into recession to prove a point about corporate economics.

      meh... CEOs are totally treated fairly... heh

    76. Re:GO UNIONS! by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Still, the exiting CEO Brian Driscoll taking $1.5 million on his way out, just last March, is kind of a slap in the face when he lead the company to the verge of bankruptcy.

      Im sure that was in his contract. Are you one of those that think contracts should only be enforced when you like them?

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    77. Re:GO UNIONS! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      And now, they are individuals who own homes, have families, have established roots, and are out of work.

      I suspect that history would indicate getting a new boss in the same establishment under as good or better terms is a bit remote. But we shall see.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    78. Re:GO UNIONS! by BigFire · · Score: 1

      I wonder what these idiots were thinking.

      They were thinking they would rather work with a new company who has a product consumers want to buy instead of going down with a sinking ship that would bleed them dry on the way down.

      If hostess can't properly market and sell products then they should go bankrupt.

      I've seen this happen numerous times: a company starts doing poorly, they ask their employees to take cuts. The employees take cuts. The company keeps doing worse, the employees even sometimes start working for free "don't worry we'll turn this around soon." A few months later the company declares bankruptcy and everybody gets fired anyway and the company refuses back pay.

      Hostess could have sold to another company which wanted to buy them but they said no. As the article mentions, Pringles was doing poorly, it sold off and now it's incredibly successful because it got new management and marketing.

      I haven't eaten a hostess product in years. When I think hostess I think truck stop 10 year old Styrofoam. I can't remember the last time I saw someone eat a Hostess product. Cutting wages isn't going to help. The sooner its property and assets are sold off to someone who can either reinvigorate the brand or put its kitchens to better use the better imo.

      The Baker's union was under the impression that there's a White Knight buyer on the horizon (Bimbo). Bimbo could've just waited for liquidation and buy the brand and formula and NONE of the union contract and pension obligation. Which is what's it's shaping up to be. I wonder if the union leadership was paid by Bimbo to deliberately kill the company to facilitate this?

    79. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not once in any of the posts you've responded to has anyone claimed that executives giving up their salaries would provide enough money to turn the company around. The point is that, while the company was supposedly going down the drain, administration was making no 'concessions' and were even taking increased bonuses.

      That you try to defend this with strawman arguments is very troubling.

    80. Re:GO UNIONS! by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      In order to shift production down and cut costs, you must either fire some workers or pay everyone less. I think the only way you can fire union workers is if they breach contract. So, Hostess attempted to cut costs by paying everyone less. The workers did not agree to this and so striked.

    81. Re:GO UNIONS! by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      I'm not particularly familiar with the bakers union's contract. Do you know if the run of the mill guy has a severance bonus? Why do CEOs get severance pay out of the company coffers while workers get unemployment out of the government's coffers?

      You know how people complain about the welfare queens that learn how to work the system? Jumping from job to job just long enough to collect unemployment. They're bad employees but not bad enough to get canned until they qualify for the benies. Those people are bad right? Leeches sucking resources out of the system that they're not contributing to.

      How does that compare to a CEO that sticks around for less than two years, fails to turn the company around, THE VERY THING HE WAS HIRED TO DO, and leaves with a million dollar bonus?

      But no, you're right. A contract is a contract. But why the hell was the CEO's contract so sweet when he did such a bad job?
      (Also, I don't actually know if the execs or the union workers were overpaid, just who got raises and who got cuts.)

    82. Re:GO UNIONS! by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 1

      If you were in that union, you would have noticed that 92% of your fellow workers voted against the company's offer.

    83. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America! America!
      God shed His grace on thee,
      And crown thy good with brotherhood
      From sea to shining sea!

      God bless you. And God bless these mighty United States of America!

    84. Re:GO UNIONS! by Herkum01 · · Score: 1
      1. 1) Ask employees to take a pay cut
      2. 2) Reduce/remove pensions
      3. 3) Bad management taking pay increases (PROFIT!)
      4. 4) Goto Step 1

      I think I can see why unions are the bad guys here, they want to interfere with the PROFIT step!

    85. Re:GO UNIONS! by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      So your answer is that it is OK for managers to go and loot the till?

      I think unions are finally catching on to the whole capitalism thing, with a big FU when you have a CEO that does that. It did not matter what happened the employees or the company; the CEO is getting PAID YO!

      The Union and their employees were never going to get anything worth-while so why keep giving in?

    86. Re:GO UNIONS! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the assumption that the factory workers were living large and can afford to take a big cut.

      Then find another job. I dont think ending the jobs of all hostess employees really helps the job market tho, seems to me it would just make it harder to get a good wage.

    87. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hostess, not one bit, tried to compete in their space--when healthy foods were becoming popular. Just produce the same old crap as it was in 1950.

      The Unions just exposed it. And the unions just need to realize they were working for a dying industry (i.e. junk food that can survive a nuclear winter).

    88. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think trying to get respek by coercion is a moral thing to do.

      The higher wages of union workers do not come from the rich. They come from the unemployed and less skilled workers, who see their opportunities reduced when less people are hired.

      Everyone in America can get food and shelter for free. Every job in America pays enough to live off of. You might not get everything you want, but you will certainly get a 'living wage' or a 'prevailing wage'.

      It's a myth that unions have ever done good for workers. The best tool that workers have ever had to demand better conditions is not unions or lobbyists, but simply the act of quitting, and working somewhere else.

      If you want to know what John Schnatter should do, or any business in America should do, in order to be perfectly moral, is to close their doors until the president realizes that the Affordable Care Act is exactly Italian Fascism, and nothing else.

    89. Re:GO UNIONS! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That's an awfully simplistic view. The first step is asking employees to take a pay cut, huh? How about the first step is "the business is sinking, we need a way to keep it afloat". Then the next step could be management proposing layoffs and closings, then of course the unions would reject that (because god forbid that a single fucking worker loses their job in a sinking company). That type of thing would continue until the unions suggest that everything stays like it is, even though the company is going under.

      But yeah, management is always evil, unions are always heroes, I get it. They get to be heroes right up until the end, when the company closes, sells everything off, and everyone loses their jobs. Good thing they had the unions to protect their jobs.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    90. Re:GO UNIONS! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      So it's OK for management to screw over everyone as long as they only do it a little bit to each person who actually does the work. got it.

    91. Re:GO UNIONS! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      While the company may not be in business, the executives still have their millions in pay raises and golden parachutes.

    92. Re:GO UNIONS! by xmundt · · Score: 2

      Hum...according to a quick search, the CEO make $2.5 million/year, and, most of the rest of the upper level management folks are making between $700,000 and $900,00. While that might not keep the company doors open, it would certainly help give the many, near-minimum wage employees a larger separation bonus.
                The fact that management was asking for an 8% pay cut, and a 17% increase in employee contributions to the health plan costs had to hurt most of the workers. Unless they make a pretty good chunk of change, that can be a significant bite out of one's income. The fact that upper level management gave itself huge salary increases while freezing the pay of the employees is not a good thing either. Now, a quick Net search seems to indicate that the average "inside worker" at Hostess was making about $25K/year. That is not a terrible salary, by any means, if one is single. However, if one has a wife and a couple of kids, it looks like that is barely above the poverty level in America.
                I do not think that anyone has all the facts, but, it looks to me that there were two major factors that brought the Hostess brand to this end. 1) bad management, that included allowing the infrastructure to wear out so the factories were less productive; a lack of oversight that allowed general, unnamed overhead expenses to grow to very high levels; and, an increasingly adversarial relationship between management and employees. 2) A lack of understanding about the changing desires of Americans. Take wonder Bread for example - it is, in my opinion, pretty awful. It is fragile, tasteless, mostly air, and, has the reputation for having more components from a chemical plant than a green plant. While that was the goal for Americans at one time, there is a little more interest in good, healthy food these days. Same thing for the cupcakes and Twinkies. I know a lot of people that talk about them, and, used to eat them, but, would not do so on a bet these days. However, if the product was that loved, it seems to me that they could have gotten away with raising the price a bit, and more than easily made up the deficit.

      --
      YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
    93. Re:GO UNIONS! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      contracts are not enforceable if they are entirely one sided. Of course, since you only care about the executives and not the people who actually do any work, I can see why you would consider this to be a bad thing.

    94. Re:GO UNIONS! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Yes and when "improvement" is measuring in short term monetary gains "improvement" is almost always brought about by destroying the company.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    95. Re:GO UNIONS! by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      They already took a cut and management responded by giving themselves raises. you might think that the entire world exists for your own personal benefit, but the grownups who actually do all of the work disagree.

    96. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concessions made by the union would not have helped Hostess, whose management team hasn't introduced any meaningful products, nor adapted any existing products to the changing market. The company has a billion dollars of debt and $2B in sales. There's a reason they were in bankruptcy before the strike, and its unlikely the company would have emerged from its most recent venture into the BK courts, regardless of union response. This just accelerated the process.

    97. Re:GO UNIONS! by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Destroying a company never benefits executives.

      How does shit like this get modded up? Does no one remember SCO? Does "private equity" mean nothing to you? There are plenty of ways that executives can profit by pillaging the companies they are supposed to manage.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    98. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You almost lost me when I thought you were going to complain about the PCness of corpse and rape. But you had me back with "creamy cash filling."

    99. Re:GO UNIONS! by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Cause those people were betting their careers, thats why. "Drive a company into the ground", and you're retired whether you like it or not. Thus, the parachute. Otherwise who the hell would want that job.

    100. Re:GO UNIONS! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      because their product wasn't as in demand.

      Their product was in demand to the tune of 2.5 BILLION in sales. That is a LOT of demand.

    101. Re:GO UNIONS! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      That said, Hostess is a clusterfuck of a company. Their sales are shit,

      2.5 BILLION is "shit?"
      I wish I had shitty sales like that...

    102. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destroying a company reduces it's large dept to zero thus worth an extra large bonus to the CEO. The company is dead anyway, might as well extract as much money for yourself as possible. They don't care about the workers.

    103. Re:GO UNIONS! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A competent person would take the job without the parachute, and that's the only sort of person the Board of Directors should hire. The BoD and the hedge funds that own Hostess were self-destructive in their failure to do that. Almost as self-destructive as a union.

      There are company leaders who refuse raises (Peter Drucker) and employees, myself included, who have told their employer "I'm earning enough, I don't need a raise like this."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    104. Re:GO UNIONS! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I believe the legal term is that each side in a contract must receive a "valuable consideration". There is no legal prohibition on unreasonable or "unfair" contracts. An executive is providing the value of his leadership.

      If you want to examine contracts with no valuable consideration, you might look into Michelle Obama's no-show hospital job, although it could be argued she was providing political pull.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    105. Re:GO UNIONS! by Glendale2x · · Score: 2

      If the Teamsters think your union is doing something stupid, it just might be.

      --
      this is my sig
    106. Re:GO UNIONS! by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Executives don't NEED constant benefit. Once you're rich, getting more rich or not getting any more rich doesn't really matter.

      I realize folks are in a panic over losing Twinkies and Wonder Bread, but just take in for a moment the following tidbit of information: Hostess Executives provided themselves 70% raises last year. Today they announce they're closing the company because their rank-and-file workers refused to take an 8% pay cut. Consider who will be hurt by closing the company. (Hint: it won't be the executives.)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    107. Re:GO UNIONS! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If you are worth much more than you're being paid and your employer refuses to pay you what you want, you either take what you're offered or get work elsewhere. If you're an honest man, you do not join a gang of thugs and shut the company down.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    108. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Have you done the math?

      Of course he hasn't. They're in a union because they're not smart enough to do math, remember?

    109. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you not been paying attention for the last 30-odd years? You have the mindset of someone from the 19th century, not the 21st.

      1). Ever hear of the golden parachute? Look it up;
      2). Executive bonuses are routinely paid in the face of poor or even disastrous results. The ways these systems are engineered to pay out are endless;
      3). Hostess Twinkies are the very definition of worthless crap and always have been. They were nonetheless hugely successful and for decades too.

      I'm not saying this is the way it should be. This is the way it is, all over the corporate landscape.

    110. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Management and their crony lawyers could have given up their entire salary and worked pro-bono all year, and it *still* wouldn't have been enough to bring the company out of the red.

      Not relevant. Individual workers are being asked to make sacrifices, each one of which is going to make little difference. Why isn't each manager and each lawyer being asked to do exactly the same? I think they have an entitlement problem, different rules for the rich and for the poor.

    111. Re:GO UNIONS! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Put yourself into the position of a potential employer who needs backers, would you hire somebody who used to work for Hostess? Think about it for a little bit and you will come to the only correct conclusion: nobody who worked for Hostess and especially as part of the baker union is going to be hired by any employer who has 2 brain cells to rub together.

      I think there's truth to that. In fact the only employees likely to be hired elsewhere in anything resembling the same industry would be the ones who got out before all that went down and could prove it. I think this supports my original point. Congratulations, you successfully took down your company. Yay for you. Now what?

      When even the teamsters think it's a bad idea to prolong a strike, it probably is.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    112. Re:GO UNIONS! by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Well considering all those steps happened, I fail to see any basic for your argument.

      You want simplistic, management was incompetent and took what they could left the everyone else, including the government holding the bag.

      At least the unions for the low wage people and their jobs. When you have a CEO who jacked his salary from 750 K to 3 Mill (when he saw the company going to bankrupt) who do you think he was fighting for? It certainly was not for the workers or even the company. He raided the till and headed for the hills.

    113. Re:GO UNIONS! by drkim · · Score: 1

      You almost lost me when I thought you were going to complain about the PCness of corpse and rape. But you had me back with "creamy cash filling."

      Thank you for your kind words.

      If, however, the news article had been about, say, union morticians caught raping corpses, I would have, of course, requested a car analogy.

    114. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm tired of people blaming the working class for failing companies. Why is it never the fault of the guy at the top who gets paid the big bucks to run the company successfully.

    115. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh. The execs were running the company SO WELL that they were eligible for raises, but the company was doing so poorly that they had to cut employee wages. Yeah, that makes sense.

    116. Re:GO UNIONS! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      This was a self-inflicted wound on the part of the unions. Even the auditor from the teamsters union said the company couldn't survive without this kind of contract.

      The industry is swimming in overcapacity. Either all the snack makers had to make cuts or one of them had to go. Hostess was already in chapter 11 earlier this year - there was never any doubt what would happen if they couldn't bring labor costs under control. Frankly the union members who voted down this contract are idiots.

    117. Re:GO UNIONS! by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I just don't agree with your argument, because splitting up funds among all employees isn't a rational use for funds.

      There's only so much money in the pot. When executives in a failing company drain the pot into their own pockets, they accelerate the failure and make it harder to prevent it, because the company has fewer financial resources to do the things it needs to do in order to survive.

      It doesn't matter if the pittance of a multi-million-dollar salary split up among all the employees wouldn't be noticeable. If the executives give up a million dollars a year of salary, that's a million dollars that can be put to productive use - whether research, finances, or keeping twenty people employed that your company needs but can't otherwise afford.

      And yet, none of that is why most people are so outraged by exorbitant executive salaries at a failing company. They just think that if your bad judgement means people are losing their jobs and the company is failing, you shouldn't be living high. If the company is doing poorly, the people running the company should feel some pain. To do otherwise is bad for image, bad for morale, and immoral.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    118. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why companies like Wal-Mart squashes any talk of union as soon as possible.

    119. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the mindset that I cannot comprehend. Either you do want to work for what these jokers are offering, or you don't. If they come back wih something that isn't going to work for me personally, I'm not sticking around. Sucks trying to find a new job right in the current market, but the alternative now is hitting the job market the same day that 18,499 other people with similar skils will be doing the same.
      Truth is, a company cannot 'bend me over.' They don't own me, I decide if I want to take what they are offering and that's it.

    120. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the entire executive board of Ford Motor Co. forfeited all of their salaries and bonuses and stock options for 1 year, they could raise every single Ford employee's salary by 18 cents per year (which is to say zero, because nobody would get a 1/3 penny per paycheck salary boost).

      Most of your post is -1 Stupid, but this part is -1 Wrong. The executive board made 60M$ last year and Ford has 164k employees, yielding 366$/employee. But hey, what's a factor of 2000? I'm sure you pulled that number out of your ass in perfectly good faith, and not to prop up the rest of your idiotic screed with a facade of fiscal prudence.

    121. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Join a gang of thugs? Did some of them get appointed to the executive board?

    122. Re:GO UNIONS! by Galestar · · Score: 1

      AND they were pillaged by a pair of VC firms to the tune of somewhere around $700 Million

      Can you provide a citation for this? I would like to rebut a friend of mine who is blaming this all on the union.

      --
      AccountKiller
    123. Re:GO UNIONS! by huckamania · · Score: 1

      These unionized workers were making much more then minimum wage.

      What I don't understand is why they will be allowed to collect unemployment. They voted to not accept a new contract. How is that not the same as quitting? You don't get unemployment for quitting your job and the 5000 GCBCU members should be laughed at when they go to collect.

    124. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if all of the executives are pulling $100M a year total, cutting the CEO salary to total of $1M total, would only pay the salaries of everyone else for about 3 months.

      And for how many months can you pay the salaries of everyone else if you instead raise the CEO salary by 80%, Mr. Math Genius?

    125. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Bimbo.

    126. Re:GO UNIONS! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yep, but /. moderators aren't hiring, are they?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    127. Re:GO UNIONS! by DMiax · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that is the union's fault. If Hostess offered 50% should they have taken it because it is better than 0%? if they offered 10%? It all boils down to whether they can still make ends meet with their salaries after the cut.

    128. Re:GO UNIONS! by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Executive pay has gone fucking apeshit in comparison to worker pay. Its fucking pathetic. BUT...executive pay is NOT really a reason why companies fail. In the overall scheme of things, it amounts to dick/year in expenses.

      While executive pay is often an insignificant expense, I do think "massive raises prior to bankruptcy filing" is an indicator of a) terrible management and b) imminent demise. I suspect management has their reasons for all of this, but it's starting to look pretty strongly like their primary goal was not to keep the company afloat.

      The union...well, their blame is they ended up with 0% of their original pay instead of 80% of it. I can't say I blame the staff for not wanting to take a pay cut, but I'd also rather have a job.

      I'm not familiar with the workers' salaries at Hostess, but this is a bit of a fallacy. Workers aren't always better off taking pay cuts instead of saying "ok, fuck you, close the business then". There are many other businesses in the area, and depending on the pension cuts they were talking about they might actually be better off (although I'm waiting to hear that the pension funds were criminally underfunded)...

      In short, the company looks doomed anyway. I don't believe its current management is serious about turning it around, and there's a decent chance most of the workers will find other work.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    129. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,
      It could "only" cover the 1/3 of the workers' saleries for an entire year.

    130. Re:GO UNIONS! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      So it's okay for a single person pillaging a company to death just because his salary is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else? He's still enriching himself to a ridiculous degree at the cost to everybody else. Had he taken a pay cut like everybody else, he could have expected a lot more sympathy from his workers. If he keeps enriching himself while steering the company down the drain, he should expect his golden goose to die.

    131. Re:GO UNIONS! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Here it was the CEO twisting the arm and breaking it off. He got all the eggs from the golden goose, and out of greed, he killed it.

    132. Re:GO UNIONS! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      no, you are wrong sir. all the unions, EXCEPT the bakers, accepted concessions. it quite clearly states that if you RTFA. that means even the Teamsters accepted concessions; if even the Teamsters are being reasonable then.....wow.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    133. Re:GO UNIONS! by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      A hungrier company that will likely not be unionized.

    134. Re:GO UNIONS! by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      This just ten cents a pizza thing is bullshit. Its not like your receipt would have a line saying 10 cent obamacare tax. If they could raise their pizza price by ten cents they would have ALREADY done so. I have a couple friends in local management for different chains and every food chain is seriously considering this. It is an extremely cutthroat industry and those that can't make tough decisions are replaced by those who can.

    135. Re:GO UNIONS! by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      It is sad that a site that so prides itself for smart members is so stupid with basic business math. It devalues opinions on other topics that are without a doubt more complex.

    136. Re:GO UNIONS! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Actually i dont care about either side to be honest. I do care about contract law however. Enforceability of contracts is a cornerstone of economics.

      As far as both sides getting a deal, it doesn't legally matter if its lopsided or not. Also, you dont think that the employees got benefit from him during the rest of his tenure by remaining employees? ( and vice-versa, he got a paycheck from them producing.. )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    137. Re:GO UNIONS! by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      First, Papa John's is making $87M in profits, so the $8M quarter to treat the employees reasonably should be an acceptable cost of doing business - especially if you think the $2.7M paid to Schnatter is a reasonable cost. Second, health insurance increases productivity - healthier employees, less churn, absenteeism, etc. Third, "real" companies provide health insurance without whining and they have to cover the cost of that. Finally, the 10c is a totally bogus number, people good at math have put the number at less than 5c/pizza.

      The US spends double as a percent of GDP on health care of countries that provide universal care and yet has people who have no access to care. Everyone will get sick and need care at some point or another. A civilized country needs to figure out how to do this. Everyone in the US is one major illness away from bankruptcy - you get sick, you loose your job, you loose your insurance. The real solution would be single-payer, just about everyone's costs would decrease and everyone would be covered. The insurance industry, which is, obscenely, making a profit on people being sick - rather like a breathing tax - killed that by lobbying. Obamacare is a compromise, but once the whiny CEOs get over it, it will provide benefits to more people at a reasonable cost. Why these CEOs want to be in the business of healthcare and aren't lobbying the government to take over and get them out of the loop is, frankly, beyond me.

    138. Re:GO UNIONS! by skine · · Score: 1

      And since they can blame the Union for the company going under, they will do well on their next job interview as an executive somewhere else.

    139. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But was the debit real. As with all bain style companies, they got the company by "leveraged" buyin. Got the people they wanted in place, then renigged on the payment for the debit to the banks. Declared bankruptcy, so they could pay 10 cents oor less on the dollar owed, pocketed the difference. Didnt fund the upkeep of the company, so they could close several factories, due to "hazards" and sold them off. Pocketing the difference, of the people were left, the then declared bankruptcy again to void "contracts" with suppliers and unions, and future obligtions (like retirements that workers also paid into), and pocketed the difference.
      You keep doing that till the company goes bankrupt for the last time. And you loose a national treasure, like the twinkie (which if you soak it in strawberry jello, and let firm up, and cool whip it) is a national treasure.

    140. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to a worker friend, rose, they wern't offered the part where the saleries were to go up. just further down.

    141. Re:GO UNIONS! by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Hostess is owned by a group of vulture capitalist firms FTFY

    142. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, maybe the problem was that, in the past, Hostess UNDERPAID its executives and thus weren't getting the... cream of the crop. Or perhaps they HAD to increase salaries in order to ensure the executives they had stayed with a company that was obviously in trouble.

      There are reasons why a company does certain things beyond simply being nefariously evil. I know that doesn't fit your world view, but that's not surprising since it seems to be a black and white one.

    143. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you don't understand the whole situation. When the the executives raised their compensation the way they did they annouced that Hostess was toast. They took a large severance bonus for themselves off the top. The meaning of this action is clear management no longer had any commitment to the continued operation of Hostess. Having to run a company when half of the employees are unwilling to accept the working conditions is not tenable.

      Many of the skilled bakery workers make much more than $8 hr. The Hostess brands will be sold and produced by someone else. Skilled employees with experience will be needed to do this production. Many of the current employees will work for the new company and they will make about what they made before. Lesser skill employees will not fare as well. If you have ever worked for a failing company you have to decide do I continue to work here or not. The democrarticly arrived at decisions of union members may seem or even be unwise. I will leave you with one last thought democracy like revenge can be an unpleasant female dog.

    144. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This such bullshit! During the Romney era at Bain they were involved in about 80 leveraged buyouts. Only about 8 of those went into bankruptcy. That is batting .900 a pretty dam good average by any measure. Why don't you learn some facts instead of spouting the Obama campaign bullshit like it is fact. See the linked article from the Washington Post, hardly a GOP leaning paper. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/more-tenuous-claims-about-romneys-bain-capital-record/2012/07/10/gJQAZmKDbW_blog.html

    145. Re:GO UNIONS! by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 1

      The company was already in bankruptcy, and not for the first time - http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/hostess-brands-says-it-will-liquidate/

    146. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is different to quitting because they were still on their old contracts. Accepting the new offer would be equivalent to quitting and taking a new job (which, structurally, is how many companies manage promotions, especially for high-level or one-off positions).

    147. Re:GO UNIONS! by swalve · · Score: 1

      I think the only way you can fire union workers is if they breach contract.

      I'm no fan of unions, but this is quite an exaggeration of how it works. How management is allowed to fire workers is determined by the contract they signed.

      But there is a difference between firing and laying off (eliminating positions). I don't know of any union where you can't eliminate positions.

    148. Re:GO UNIONS! by swalve · · Score: 1

      That's how it works...sometime you win (Staples) and sometimes you lose (Hostess)

      And who ever would have thought that it would work out that way? You'd think Hostess would be a slam dunk to restructure and turn profitable! Twinkies? Wonder Bread? But Staples? In an environment with Office Depot and Office Max, selling commodities? That don't make no sense.

    149. Re:GO UNIONS! by swalve · · Score: 1

      You can't blame the union for striking based on eliminating the 8 hour day. That's sort of a cornerstone.

    150. Re:GO UNIONS! by swalve · · Score: 1

      Beefsteak Rye?

      Man, I love that shit. I hope that brand gets bought up by someone.

    151. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they payed their workers nothing, imagine how well they might do! In this wonderland of magical economics where manpower has no real cost, and you can just keep cutting it whenever your business starts to falter. Wait, there's a name for that, I think. Slavery.

      You are a horrible person and deserve scorn.

    152. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, geeks. You know, people who know about numbers and such. Rather than MBAs, who are trained to be the perfect little leaches, and hump Ayn Rand's corpse. Who's the moron.

    153. Re:GO UNIONS! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      If it made sense, everyone would be doing it.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    154. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the story about the Golden Goose go again?

      It starts with the goose producing gold, as opposed to the feces this company has bestowed upon its employees.

    155. Re:GO UNIONS! by Meski · · Score: 1

      How dare you use logic against perception and feelings!

    156. Re:GO UNIONS! by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "Destroying a company never benefits executives."

      Uh huh. Tell that to Bain Capital.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    157. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It tends to be true. Most executives have a majority of their wealth tied up in the company stock. If the company goes bankrupt, stock loses a lot of value--usually becoming worthless, in fact.

    158. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is humans are so bad at this, they hit the lottery and win $173,000 and they make $25k/year working at Wal-Mart and so they quit their job and spend their vast fortune buying expensive cars and touring Europe and ... wonder why they're broke. People win $5 million and retire, and 6 months later they're broke and looking for a job. It's no surprise they're thinking, why not take your executive bonuses and give them to your employees so they can all have raises? In small-to-medium businesses that's sometimes a good $50 a paycheck per employee; in small businesses with 3 employees everyone could get a 30%-50% raise, though sometimes the CEO is skipping paychecks himself (because he's obligated to pay his employees' wages first). As the business gets bigger, those numbers become fractional.

    159. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      My numbers are probably wrong; when I did this a decade ago, Ford had 300,000 employees and total executive compensation was 4-7 million dollars per executive including salary, stocks, and bonuses. Also, kids don't need a bunch of junk to "have a Christmas," what you on about?

    160. Re:GO UNIONS! by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Yes, because they couldn't have expanded their product line to other products that are by design, more healthy, rather than tweaking healthy variants out of their normal products. Part of business is to change and adapt. Sometimes it has to be large change.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    161. Re:GO UNIONS! by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      ... Great. Now I have to clean the barf off of my desk. The only remotely appetizing thing on that list was the bacon - which, ok, is completely awesome.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    162. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You are buying too much house. Those credit cards will crush you. I know, I was there..

      Interest on a house for say a 150k house right now is about 8-10k per year. All mortgages are front loaded. The gov 'lets' you keep 3k of that.

      I'm better at this than you are. Loans are not "front loaded," they are "savings accounts that the bank opens in you." The "principal and interest" thing is a myth, an abstraction for weak-minded third grade drop-outs (i.e. Americans). The truth is you have a balance and you compound interest daily on it. The balance is high, the interest paid is high; you pay a fixed monthly pay-out, not a part of your house plus the interest accrued, so of course at first 98% of that is interest accrued and 2% is paying down the balance below what it was last month. This is the same concept as hunking a huge amount of cash into a savings account to "live off the interest."

      The solution is to pay extra on the loan. This is called a "principal payment", whereas normally a payment is put into escrow and then applied to your loan on a schedule.

      Credit cards have 15+% interest rates.

      Last time I refinanced my car loan, I dropped it below my credit card. 10.71% car loan, 9.99% credit card, but at this point my credit card has a 7.99% APR for cash advance. A motorcycle loan is at least 6% APR; I may as well buy a motorcycle on my credit card, there's no filing fee.

      Besides, I've already raised enough capital in the past 4 weeks to pay off 80% of my credit card balance anyway. Straight out. God knows I only spend 15% of my paycheck. I'll have that house paid off in 14 months if I really want, but more like 3 years ... I'm going to redo the kitchen, buy expensive appliances, and replace the carpet with bamboo flooring first. Oh, and pay off my car loan. Can do that in 4-5 months.

    163. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      300,000 employees before the car industry shit itself during Bush's term. At least that's what Yahoo was reporting at the time for Ford's business profile. $366/year on bi-weekly pay is still $14/paycheck. Maybe I'm misremembering my numbers; does an order of a Taco Bell boxed meal really matter? 14 bucks isn't paying anyone's mortgage.

    164. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. Ever notice there's a few famous CEOs with a serial record for destroying companies that seem decent, but in hindsight look weak? They're there for the controlled drop. People bring them in specifically to bring the company to its end nice and easy so the executives and shareholders can get out. Hypothetically, Hostess could have just decided there's no reason for the Captain to not bail out of a sinking ship when it's going down too god damn fast to wait around.

    165. Re:GO UNIONS! by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Why do people always demand the executives take salary cuts so they can make everything better?

      Because, you see, corporations need labor. The idea that the executives are making out like bandits, while the guys who actually make the products are being screwed left and right make for poor employees. Even those employees that are initially grateful to have a job tire of the perceived inequality by this type of behavior. This leads to a unmotivated workforce and poor relations with management.

      If employees are not invested in the company, the adversarial relationship harms the company. There is little incentive to innovate or increase productivity. And at the extreme, employees would rather see a company dead than take the table scraps that remain.

      I am often astonished at the number of wage slaves that denigrate unions, yet complain that they have no health insurance. They feel entitled to paid holidays, yet have no idea where the concept arose. Have unions sometimes gotten out of hand? Yes, but that doesn't preclude the need to keep management in check. Otherwise, you exist at the mercy of the company and whatever economic conditions prevail.

      And NO, I am not a member of any union.

    166. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the management had been worth anything, they'd have never allowed the unions to featherbed their contracts to the point of driving the company under. if obama was planning on trying to save his healthcare fiasco by passing a twinkie tax on unhealthy food, (remember, everything is unhealthy except for soylent green), it can't be called the twinkie tax anymore.
       

    167. Re:GO UNIONS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe if the unions hadn't spent all that money on political donations they could buy up all the assets and run the company themselves. I'd love to see them try. lawyers make for bad managers. It would be interesting to see what happens to all the featherbed contracts that drove the company to bankruptcy after the union leadership takes over. I bet the new bakers union will require spanish as a first language and their leadership will strive for $4.75 for their new hourly wage.

    168. Re:GO UNIONS! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      SAN FRANCISCO, May 7, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Diamond Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq:DMND) ("Diamond") today announced the appointment of food and beverage industry veteran Brian J. Driscoll as President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Link

      He left Hostess in March, and got a new job in May. Unless this is some other Brian Driscoll CEO in the food industry...
      Ok, so you're wrong on this one. Maybe one of the other 6 CEOs that helped pile-drive hostess in the last year is having trouble getting work. Could be.

      But these people aren't betting anything. The system is rigged in their favor, and even if they do a REALLY shitty job, they come out with a million dollar bonus and a new job where they ride the gravy train and get a merit bonuses, or ride the fail train and get another severance bonus. And they'll say there was nothing they could do to help their old company. That it was doomed. And they'll blame a laundry list of factors. They may even be right. But then why the hell are we paying these people so much if they have so little power?

    169. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So you respond to the question with a tirade that ignores the fact that divying up the cost of executive compensation across the labor equally results in basically a meal at McDonalds?

      In small businesses with 2 employees, yeah, the guy at the top makes $100k/year and hires two monkeys for $30k/year, he could cut his salary off and give them $80k/year; the more employees you get, the less it divies up. $100k and 2 employees turns into $10M and 200 employees... except, well, at Ford the executives make a total of $60M and instead of 1200 employees they have 170,000 employees, $353 per year raise but just the CEO is $60/year (call it $6 million). Hostess 18500 employees, $4.5M executive compensation was considered "outrageous" and was cut back, but still that's $243/year per employee.

      So what do you purport is the physical/real (i.e. not moral/imaginary) benefit to executives NOT making out like bandits?

    170. Re:GO UNIONS! by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      You are clearly fixated on the numbers and completely missing the big picture. It's not about the spreadsheet, bean counter justifications. The appearance of impropriety that the Hostess CEO demonstrated by his HUGE multimillion dollar payraise (~240%) and capital mismanagement just prior to the third bankruptcy while asking employees for a 20% paycut just months later that sewed the seeds of this fiasco. This set the stage for a "us vs. them" battle with management. Management cannot expect a harmonious partnership with labor when they exhibit an "I got mine; sorry about YOUR luck" attitude.

      Management was not a team player with Hostess workers. A team player takes his lumps along with his teammates. This is called setting an example even if it only amounts to a symbolic token. Unfortunately, they set the wrong example. Management is in large part about leadership and motivation. Hostess's team failed at both. Unfortunately, they also failed in innovation, vision, and strategy.

      Besides, Hostess was a walking corpse anyway. Check out business writer Adam Hartung for a good analysis. http://www.thephoenixprinciple.com/blog/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-failure.html

    171. Re:GO UNIONS! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You are clearly fixated on the numbers and completely missing the big picture. It's not about the spreadsheet, bean counter justifications.

      Then pray more and it'll work out. Praying helps people in the hospital survive. It's not about the statistics, the numbers that beancounters use to show that people who are prayed for recover no faster nor more frequently than people who aren't; it's about the God-given truth that prayer heals.

      Management, with no way to ensure further profitability and no way to extend the life of the company, would do well to cut and run. Know when to hold, when to fold, when to walk away, and when to run.

      I wonder if this will turn out like OnLive, where the executives sucked the company's venture capital dry when it was hemorrhaging to death, then set up a new shell corporation and purchased OnLive and restored (reduced) business operations. Maybe. They could pay out to themselves and then form a new joint to restructure, acquiring Hostess operations by selling off their facilities essentially to themselves. Then again, they could just be sensibly cutting and running instead of going down with the rest of the ship.

      Besides, Hostess was a walking corpse anyway.

      Why does the captain have to go down with the rest of the ship when he can't save anyone?

    172. Re:GO UNIONS! by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Chastising the CEO for having a contract that is overpriced while support a union contract that is overpriced is a bit hypocritical.

      The second problem might be successively corrected by a CEO who is not overpaid. The fact of him being perceived as being overpaid made him less competent at actually doing his job. That is a failure of management by the board of directors.

    173. Re:GO UNIONS! by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Lots of highly competent people, albeit with thinner resumes, would take that job at a moderate pay rate. Getting "I saved a troubled large company" on your resume is worth something in terms of future job prospects. An overpaid CEO cannot save a company where an underpaid CEO might. But it would require management with the courage to figure out how to fix the problems, rather than whine and blame the unions for their own serial egregious failures.

    174. Re:GO UNIONS! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I hear what you're saying, and pensions are just fundamentally flawed for a company in decline... But is a 401(k) really better? How much do you trust stock brokers in NY with your future?

      A properly diversified 401(k)? I put a lot of trust in it, actually. It's better than a company pension that is likely to get axed when the company goes through Chapter 11.

      Long gone are the days of the loyal company worker who worked at a stable company for 30 or 40 years, and I'd greatly prefer a retirement system that isn't tied to the health of the company.

  6. Starvageddon by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just before Dec. 21, coincidence?

    1. Re:Starvageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what the Mayans were really warning us about.
      It's just been misinterpreted all these years....

  7. Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's never management's fault the company is failing, it's always the "Unions, Unions, Unions".
    If a company can't afford to pay a living wage, a company SHOULD go out of business.

    1. Re:Right... by MNNorske · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually if you read some of the comments from the CEO. He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around (including management and the unions.) He was brought in during the bankruptcy to restructure the company and get it back on its feet. It was hemorrhaging money and he laid the case out for everyone. Surprisingly the Teamsters actually agreed to the pay cuts because they understood they'd be without jobs entirely otherwise. The bakers refused to acknowledge that the company was in such dire straights. They seemed to think management was bluffing, well in this case management wasn't.

      That being said, I've been on the receiving end of a pay cut before and it sucks. But, it was better for me at that time to have a pay cut and search for another job than to have gone entirely without a paycheck. As much as it would've hurt financially the bakers should've seen reason. 90% of a paycheck is definitely better than no paycheck.

    2. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Teamsters feel its a living wage. This has happened a few times in my memory were small unions push a company to bankruptcy. Often times its the dumbest union that ruins it for everyone.

      Look at the Northwest airlines deal 10 years ago. All the various different unions got on board with cuts and changes to keep them in business, except the mechanics. The mechanics where represented by a small local union that lacked the understanding of Northwests business, their mantra was more more more more. When told no, they said, we will burn down the company! They all are unemployed. The company moved on without them and successfully merged with Delta creating a large profitable business.

      Small unions should have learned this lesson, if those plants close and assets sold they get nothing. The jobs wont come back, they will move somewhere else under new ownership. Their pensions will be slashed to a fraction of what they expected when the pension guarantee fund takes over, the stubborn uneducated union employee loose the most, the union bosses go on to live nice lives. Its a scam.

    3. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they did. Happy? Now, how exactly does this company going out business benefit anyone, especially all of those employees that now have no job?

    4. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Teamsters actually looked at the books.

      And by the way, I've been working for over 30 years and not one job has had a pension plan.

    5. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%.
      Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?

    6. Re:Right... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Now, how exactly does this company going out business benefit anyone

      It will help every American by putting a tiny dent in our spiraling healthcare costs.

    7. Re:Right... by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, I would definitely think twice about hiring someone who has Hostess on their employment history, knowing they did that to their last employer.

      Not only do they now have no paycheck instead of 90% of one, but they might have more trouble now finding a new one.

    8. Re:Right... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Informative

      It creates a market vacuum and a cheap labor influx. Now another company can fill in the diminished market Hostess is out of, with a smaller operation that's not so expensive and lumbering and more fitted to market forces. These employees can get non-union jobs where they'll be offered more than they were making but less than their prior wages, which were garnered for union dues (i.e. $19/hr minus $5/hr = $14/hr, you get $16/hr instead which is $2/hr more), which thus lowers the economic waste spent in wages but increases the salary delivered to the worker, which increases wealth rather than simply shifting it around (and inflated labor costs actually decrease wealth). It increases wealth because after you hire 6 people at $16/hr rather than at $19/hr, what you have is 6 people receiving total $14/hr more, and enough money to hire another worker at $16/hr, and $2/hr left over in the corporate coffers to spend on economic growth to create more jobs.

      You'll notice that the initial situation is that there is less demand in this market, so market forces caused shrinkage and poverty. More unemployment. This restructuring as outlined removes the unions and shows an end where less money is spent to produce a product, while workers receive more in pay. The role of the unions here was to erode wealth (via wage inflation, which becomes general inflation); removing them may generate a larger or smaller swing than I've shown (I've seen $50/mo union dues on $5000/mo salaries and I've seen union dues where you make $20/hr and you get $14/hr with the rest going to the union), but it'll always eliminate a waste element no matter how small. There is a short-term cost here now: more unemployed labor. The market is, however, now slightly more flexible and new jobs can grow.

      A single incident like this would be just a straight loss. Constant incidents like this are typical of economic shifts. This may or may not require retraining. For example, Hostess cites competition with the current trend toward 'healthy' food. People perceive organic foods as healthy, as well as whole grains. So the bakers may move to small bread shops producing more artisan breads with unbleached, unmodified dough. Such a shift would of course then weaken the major bread mass producers; however they're highly automated and would likely have production scalebacks that resulted in reduced expense and less in reduced staffing. They would get fewer major machines, less maintenance, and thus the machine manufacturers and maintenance staff and management would shift out (in smaller numbers), which then moves the economic changes out of the baker's micro-economy and into pressure on the machinist economy. The machinists will supply wind turbines and other such stuff in the growing renewables economy, and so on.

    9. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Selfish cunts can enjoy their make believe christmas this year.

    10. Re:Right... by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I think pensions should be banned. Or, they should be placed in escrowed accounts and be purely defined contribution.

      The problem with your logic is that you KNEW there wouldn't be a pension so you negotiated a salary accordingly. That is vastly different than accepting a lower salary in the expectation of receiving a nice pension. Since most defined-benefit pension plans use a formula that amounts to workers putting in time for 20 years and then accruing all their benefits in the last 10 or so, the company has effectively taken the employee's time, but are now denying the opportunity to accrue the benefit.

      The way pensions are generally funded is a big sham - and it has the backing of the courts.

    11. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%. Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?

      You suggested that the workers demand that the owners step up and invest a few million - that multi-million dollar has to come from somewhere. Just because the company has management and owners, it doesn't mean that they have a few million dollars in cash kicking around. They may not have money to give back, which doesn't matter - the suggestion seems unreasonable for other reasons altogether. The pay cuts were an across-the-board percentage - it wasn't just the union that was getting the shaft.

      Typically, money like that comes from banks who agree to extend credit to the company based on a plan to bring the company back to profitability. In this case, the creditors reviewed (and approved) the plan to make the company solvent and agreed to loan money to allow reorganization and eventually recover from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The larger union (the Teamsters) also reviewed and accepted this plan. That plan also set pay rates back to their current levels over 4 years (not cut 50% in 6 months, as you suggested). The problem is that the bakers union (the smaller union) either didn't understand or didn't believe the plan...so they decided to strike. They also didn't believe that if they failed to return to work, that the company would close down. They were wrong on all counts. This small union took the entire company down...and it was needless. What a shame - they screwed themselves and everyone else at the company out of their jobs.

      --

      -Turkey

    12. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      This was a really nice explanation. Well written, well reasoned, and not the typical /. "wrong, and you're an ass". Too bad my mod points expired yesterday. Why can't there be more Slashdotters like you?

      --

      -Turkey

    13. Re:Right... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Ah! BLACKLISTS. That'll teach them thar unions!

    14. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%.

      As the OP said, take the pay cut and find a new job. Don't stick around waiting to see if things work out.

      Why not demand the owners of the company step up and invest a few million into it? Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?

      Well, when you strike you should demand this. No one said immediately roll over and accept pay cuts. As some point you have to realize your not going to win though and it's better to capitulate than to try and hold out for something that will not come. If they took the pay cut they would all have jobs and could more comfortably look for new employment. Now their just screwed. (Of course hindsight is 20/20. But basically the Union killed the company instead of just having everyone who didn't like the conditions quit. Seems some preferred unemployment to working which truly is sad.)

    15. Re:Right... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Pensions are caps on the lifespan of an organization.

      You can't promise to pay someone 80% of their salary until they die AND let them retire at 50.

      Just ask all those CA cities choking on Pension plans.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    16. Re:Right... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around

      Did he offer to take the same pay cut labor was going to suffer? Did he extend that offer to the rest of the executive staff? If not, he's far more to blame than the bakers. You can't blame the bakers for refusing an unfair offer.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But what is the alternative? Accept the paycut and you'll be at the same table 6 months later, only this time it won't be a 10% pay decrease, it will be 50%.

      The company was most likely going to go under anyway. You're buying time at 90% pay to find a new job, that's all. Duh.

      >Or that instead of the workers giving up their pensions, the management returns all the money it's been paid since the company started losing money?

      If you do the math (you're on /. and therefore are at least pretending to be a nerd), that $30 million would only have extended the time before the company collapsed by a few months.

    18. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.

      As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.

      Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.

    19. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Well the owners could have sold some of their shares on the stock market, then put that money into the company. I'm guessing the shares are still worth something, even if the company is near bankruptcy - they would be giving up some of what they have in exchange for a chance that the company will survive.

      AFAIK, the company was privately held. There were no publicly trade-able shares to sell. If the company was in Chapter 11 for re-org, all shares were void anyway - this is part of contracts being voided out by bankruptcy.

      As for the deal the workers were offered, what made it different from the one they had before (the one that set their old salaries)? If the management kept up like in the past, the company could soon face the same situation again - and any deals would be null and void 'for the good of the company'.

      I can't answer that. If workers had no faith in the company, they did have another option than torpedoing the company...like working somewhere else. However, when a company is hampered by contacts and debts, bankruptcy offers a method of freezing debts and other obligations to reorganize the company and return to profitability. This is how it works, and was a way to eliminate stuff like debtors prisons.

      Why weren't the workers offered a share of the company instead - work for less, but you get these shares.

      According to the articles that I read, the workers were offered a share of the company. This is one of the reasons that the Teamsters bought into the deal (but the smaller bakers union that ultimately brought down the company did not).

      --

      -Turkey

    20. Re:Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. When a worker accepts less then all workers get less. If employers know that they can pay us 10% less and we will still work for them then they just found a way to cut operational costs signifigantly. You sir are part of the reason this nation is in the situation that it is in.

    21. Re:Right... by dululu · · Score: 1

      He admitted at townhalls with the employees that there was plenty of blame for the company's current circumstances to go all around

      Did he offer to take the same pay cut labor was going to suffer? Did he extend that offer to the rest of the executive staff? If not, he's far more to blame than the bakers. You can't blame the bakers for refusing an unfair offer.

      From further up, it seems he was on a $1 a year salary, along with his top 3 executives.

    22. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      But again, why blame the workers for the situation? They were asked to not just give up what they've already earned (their pensions), but to continue investing in the company (by accepting lower wages then what they were entitled to). And all this just a few years after the company emerged from a previous bankruptcy. And why say that they torpedoed the company? Every party in this dispute could have saved it - the creditors could have forgiven debts, management could have done their jobs, owners could have paid off the debts, lawyers could have worked for free,...
      Why blame the people who had the least ability to absorb the losses?

      Just think of what you'd do, if your boss came up to you and asked you to work for minimum wage from now on, with no benefits. And then, when you'd said no, would blame you for ruining the company in the local paper.

    23. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree - the situation was not entirely the worker's fault. Clearly, there were a series of management issue; and if you followed the story at all, the management team has accepted significant responsibility on multiple occasions. The issue also came down to changes in the marketplace, as well as factories being run inefficiently (partly due to the unions fearing change and modernization of factories/bakeries). Read the articles documenting this stuff - its pretty well covered by the news media.

      Also, understand that creditors don't just forgive debts just like that. Remember that everyone answers to someone, and there is a fair bit of bureaucracy to the whole debt thing (not to mention lots of federal regulations surrounding debt).

      However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor.

      What would I do if my boss came to me and asked me to work for 8% less than I was with a 30% reduction in company contribution for benefits (not at minimum wage, with no benefits - as you suggested) in order to save the company? I would have two choices, as I see it. First, I could agree and move forward. Second, I could refuse and prepare my resume. It's not that hard of a decision. I wouldn't strike when the company was down and had no other choice, ultimately putting the company out of business and 18,000 people out of work.

      I just don't understand the ethics of a group of people taking an organization down with them. They weren't being forced to work there.

      --

      -Turkey

    24. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.

      As for being the final straw, wouldn't it be better to say that they just weren't willing to take quite so much straw from the overloaded camel? They didn't demand more money (like the management that gave itself 80% raises after the first bankruptcy), they just wanted the company to keep it's promises. And they were already loaded down with plenty of straw from the first time the company went bankrupt.

      The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out. After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.

    25. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      And what exactly is the difference between 'preparing your resume' and striking? The company could have fired them and found new workers, if that's what they wanted - but the new workers would probably have wanted more then the company was willing to pay.

      I'm amazed that you're even asking this. You're asking the difference between an individual decision and an organized and orchestrated act against a company, ultimately taking the whole thing down? It sounds like we're looking at this from vastly different angles.

      The management could have made other proposals - got better loans, found new investors, hell even sold the company (which they refused to do in the past). But they decided that quitting and blaming the union was a 'cleaner' way out

      No, they could have not made other proposals, got better loans, found new investors, or sold the company (which is another way of finding new investors). This was their last shot. They were in chapter 11 bankruptcy - it was reviewed and approved by the courts and their debtors. There was no time to make another deal - this was it. The Bakers Union just refused to believe it; they were convinced that management had another card up their sleeve when management simply did not. The Bakers Union was convinced that the management team was bluffing with the threats of closing the doors. They weren't. Have you read the analyses of this? Again, even the Teamsters were behind it. Are you sure that you understand how bankruptcy works? How is closing doors a 'cleaner' way out? Everyone was screwed. There was no money. Nothing. There were no other options. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. However, the belief that there was some sort of nefarious management meeting where it was decided that they could just stick it to the Bakers Union by closing operations, and everybody loses their job is incredibly far fetched.

      After all, we all know unions are the source of all evil.

      Again, see my comment above - I never stated anything like this here: However, while everyone in the company (including the larger union; the Teamsters - who accepted the deal) were working to save the company, the Bakers Union worked for themselves to ultimately destroy it. Again, this mess wasn't their fault, but they stepped in at a critical juncture and became the last straw. They could have saved the company; admittedly for how long nobody knows...but it was the Bakers Union that put the last nail in the coffin. This is not an indictment of all unions, but this one didn't do any of the 18,000 people in the company a single favor. (Emphasis added). Again, I just don't see the ethics of screwing everyone else over by taking a collective action like that. I also don't understand how you're arguing that this was only a one-sided thing. There was plenty of blame to go around...but the Bakers Union decided to take the ship down with them.

      --

      -Turkey

    26. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?

      Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).

      So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.

      And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.

    27. Re:Right... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      I really don't see a difference between the strike and individual decisions - most workers decided on their own that they want to strike, but those that didn't could and did go to work. Yes, many didn't - but that is because the company wanted to cut each person's pay. And as you said, you have a choice of preparing your resume in that case - they felt that their jobs weren't worth saving at that level of pay. Should they have stayed there with miserable pay until the company went bankrupt again?

      There is a huge decision between an individual and the collective. If you don't understand, there is no point in supporting the union (e.g. individual bargaining vs collective bargaining). The individuals didn't have a choice - and this is something that I do have a problem with. Employees aren't allowed to choose whether or not to join most unions - when the union decided, everyone had to follow. Certainly you can see a difference.

      And Miserable pay? To save their jobs, 8% for the first year, and steady raises for 3 years to get to where it was (plus stock grants)=miserable? Come on. It's a sacrifice for sure, but it is a far cry from what you're mentioning. You've thrown out things like "miserable" and "minimum wage"...not really backing that up with actual numbers (you also suggested that the company should have given the workers a piece of the company, which was offered). I'll continue to provide correct information as these come up...and I'm not even an vested party - I just read the news.

      Why didn't the management give the company a personal, interest free loan. The CEO had a salary of about $2.5M, surely he could put that at the disposal of the company, giving it a few more weeks to find a different solution to the crisis, or at least time to convince the union. Or how about the other executives give the company their bonuses (they just asked to court to pay them more then $6M - leading a charge into bankruptcy is worthy of a bonus after all).

      The CEO agreed to a $1 salary until Dec 31 or until the company recovered from bankruptcy. However, the executive salary was just a drop in the bucket. Check the numbers on other posts in this story - there were a few people who ran the numbers on executive salary vs the workers at large...this was a drop in the bucket and largely a symbolic gesture. It would not have helped keep the company in business for more than a few weeks if the executives worked for free. Hostess Brand's debt was huge, and it was a huge operation. A few $million would not have been sufficient to keep the company running.

      So the union's refusal to cooperate was only the last blow, because that's what the management decided. Prolonging the fight might have cut down on the bonus money the company still had.

      And there is another reason why the employees might have wanted the company to just die - they are among the creditors. If the company is liquidated now, they might still get some money before it all goes to lawyers and executives. If they give them a few more years that might not happen - the company had more debt at the end of the first bankruptcy then at the beginning.

      They kicked the company while it was down. It was the final nail in the coffin. End of story. There were no other options at that point. I understand that you inherently mistrust this management team - and have thrown out a dozen things that "could have been done". I covered that most of these were either done, or were impossible - backing them up with facts. Please, read just one or two relevant news stories before posting another reply - I'm sure that I can keep citing sources for you, but you would be doing both of us a huge favor by reading up on this stuff. To be clear, I always have held that management team (and the market) are responsible for their part in the situation. However, it was the

      --

      -Turkey

    28. Re:Right... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      The individuals DO have a choice. They can ignore/resign from the union and go to work. There are laws preventing the unions from stopping them. But given that about 90% of the union voted for a strike, that does not mean much. And yes, the pay decrease wasn't drastic on it's own. But it comes after the decreases they agreed to during the last bankruptcy and the raises they'd given up in the past in exchange for pensions - which would now also be gone.

      And yes, the CEO agreed to a salary of 1$ for a few months (after creditors went berserk over the raises) - but that did not stop the company from asking the court to approve bonuses for executives, at the same time the unions were being forced to accept lower pay. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bankruptcy-week-aheadhostess-to-start-liquidation-2012-11-16/

      And again, the unions were not kicking the company while it was down, they were the ones being kicked. They were not demanding raises or bonuses or better working conditions. The company was demanding they accept less then what they'd previously agreed to during the first bankruptcy. They weren't even negotiating - they went to the court with their 'cost cutting plan'. What the union did was dodge the kick and the management broke it's foot. And if you think that that is greed, then how do you describe the decision to now ask the court to approve bonuses now that the company is in liquidation? As for the union being un-trusting, the only thing I can say is good for them. Why trust someone that has already betrayed you? And negotiations involve two parties talking, not one party dictating.

  8. Assets will certainly be purchased... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am certain someone will pick up the assets and consumers will still get their food products.

    1. Re:Assets will certainly be purchased... by beck001 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I accidentally posted this anon.

    2. Re:Assets will certainly be purchased... by Quila · · Score: 2

      And if I understand bankruptcy right, the purchaser could buy the assets, and then hire on who he wants to run them without any union at all. This is the classic instance of the union being so stubborn it's willing to kill the company, lose people their jobs, and lose even its own union dues.

    3. Re:Assets will certainly be purchased... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Which might ultimately be the best thing for the workers.
      Getting a CEO that sticks around for more than a year and gets the company to actually make a buck would help the little people.
      Really screws over the pensioners though.

  9. Zombieland all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOOOOOO!

  10. Post-apocalypse... by dywolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world.
    Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:Post-apocalypse... by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Twinkies are already pretty valuable in the post apocalyptic world. Now they're rare too? Who needs gold when you got a twinkie warehouse!

      That was my first thought too. I wonder if they'll sell off the twinkie MFG recipe / process. Be great if they would open source it. As a DIY guy, I've made my own twinkies, but they wouldn't last for 50+ years...

      I've found an alternative by accident: I "lost" a half eaten loaf of bread behind the stove. I recovered it a year later. While most breads will mold once exposed to air (or even without being exposed), HEB's store-brand bread did not mold. Not Even Mold will eat this stuff! I know what I'm making my Zombie Slaying Helmet out of...

    2. Re:Post-apocalypse... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Mold won't eat a jar of dry sugar. Mold won't eat a big open bucket of lard. Mold won't eat protein powder. Mold won't eat vitamins. Hold won't eat honey.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:Post-apocalypse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      twinkie warehouse!

      I DON'T HABEEB IT!

      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    4. Re:Post-apocalypse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I "lost" a half eaten loaf of bread behind the stove. I recovered it a year later. While most breads will mold once exposed to air (or even without being exposed), HEB's store-brand bread did not mold.

      Mold is all about moisture. If you left the store-brand bread in a cool, wet environment were it would retain its moisture, it would've molded. If you dried out homemade bread (perhaps by sticking it behind a stove and turning the stove on), it wouldn't mold either.

    5. Re:Post-apocalypse... by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      The ideal conditions for bread mold are in a bag retaining moisture. Bread with no preservatives in a dry climate will not mold if it dessicates fast enough. Open behind a warm stove isideal conditions for that to happen.

  11. And... by nimbius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bimbo Bakery, a 10 billion dollar Mexican multinational conglomerate baking company, is looking to purchase them (for the second time.) in fact, Bimbo could have easily purchased the entire thing while hostess was on the ropes, as hostess is only worth 2.7 billion in revenue, but hostess (headquartered in texas) declined to do so.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:And... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Bimbo Bakery, a 10 billion dollar Mexican multinational conglomerate baking company

      For big fun, figure out where the VCs behind Bimbo are located. Hint: No es Mexico.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:And... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I thought you were kidding.... Bimbo Bakeries. Nah, that's just a joke.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:And... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Bimbo is a huge brand. They sell Bimbo brand bread all over the Southern United States, and is pretty much THE brand of baked goods in Latin America.

    4. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you just tell us?

    5. Re:And... by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Funny

      They also make Airheads candy and Sleeping-With-The-Boss sodas.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good that you pointed this out. The fact of the matter is that Twinkies and the Hostess brand are worth a ton. Mismanagement and wages drug them down but without this large debt on thier heads they'd be profitable. So Hostess goes bankrupt and someone else buys the assets and will be pumping out the same goods in probably less than a year.
       
      The same thing would have happened if GM would have gone under but there would be no way of telling who the buyer would have been and how many jobs would have shifted with the new ownership.

    7. Re:And... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I always suspected Sara Lee was a Bimbo...

    8. Re:And... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I see their delivery vans all over So Cal. Yeah, I snicker like a three year old at "Bimbo". I'm awful.

      I was surprised once to find out they own Sara Lee and Entemann's. There's an Entemann outlet store near me that keeps me stocked in Danish Crumb Cake.

    9. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      London

    10. Re:And... by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting
      To put things in perspective... Bimbo is the world's largest baking company you've probably never heard of, but probably buy products from. They've been buying up established regional brands for years. Arnold, Boboli, Entenmann's, Orowheat, Sara Lee, Thomas (the English muffin brand), Wonder and a lot of others.

      They have a lot of bakery outlet shops,where you can buy these brands of baked goods for next to nothing about a week before their expiration date. When I first became aware of them I was a little surprised by the name ("Really? Someone in marketing thought this was a good name for a company that makes bread and cookies?"), but it turns out the word does not have the offensive connotation in Spanish that it does in English. from Wikipedia:

      The name "Bimbo" has no specific meaning in Spanish; thus, the name has not caused significant uproar as it would in the United States, where the word "bimbo" has a negative connotation. The official theory believes that the name Bimbo, coined in 1945 when the company was rebranded from its previous name, Super Pan S.A., is the mixing of the words "bingo" and "Bambi".[4] In addition, the innocent, childlike name went well with the brand image they wanted to build.

    11. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "Wonder" do you mean Wonder Bread? That was a Hostess brand.

    12. Re:And... by guttentag · · Score: 1

      By "Wonder" do you mean Wonder Bread? That was a Hostess brand.

      In the U.S., yes, but Bimbo owns Wonder Bread in Mexico.

    13. Re:And... by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      Actually, Airheads are made by Perfetti Van Melle

    14. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Bimbos better keep their dirty hands off of our ding dongs! It's a point of patriotic pride...

    15. Re:And... by swalve · · Score: 1

      They make a Wonder Bread style bread that is awesome. It's almost like fairy cake.

  12. Should have moved production to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hostess should have moved twinkie production to China.

    Lesson learned!!!

    1. Re:Should have moved production to China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine Twinkies being marketed in Asia?

      "Fluffy goldiness. Cream and good. Happy day!"

    2. Re:Should have moved production to China by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      I literally lol'd. Thanks for a needed laugh.

  13. Uh-Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Little Debbie better watch out. She's about to get a bunch of pasty, fat, basement-dwelling boyfriends.

  14. Obligatory Zombieland Reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol http://www.examiner.com/article/the-twinkies-zombie-apocalypse-has-officially-begun

  15. Thanks, Unions by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1, Funny

    What will Zippy put his taco sauce on now?

  16. This can't be happening by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Nooooooo!!!!!

    P.S. I hate the lameness filter.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  17. I don't much care for twinkies by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    but the 2-packs of orange cupcakes... ahhh! The only time I ever see them (fortunately) is backwoods gas stations on road trips.

    Back on topic, seems the BCT union would rather be unemployed than take a pay cut.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:I don't much care for twinkies by lothos · · Score: 1

      I just picked up a THREE pack of the Orange cupcakes for 90 cents at the local Hostess outlet :)

  18. This is probably a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Yucca Mountain Waste Repository will not be built, so the sooner we can stop building Twinkies the better.

  19. Once again by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    We have to depend on inferior foreign imports..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. After the Apocalypse by Ameryll · · Score: 1

    What are we going to eat after the nuclear fallout from world war III?

    1. Re:After the Apocalypse by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Radscorpian meat obviously!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    2. Re:After the Apocalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friends and family?

  21. This is bad news by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    For us in Washington. Thank God there still making Doritos.

  22. And nothing of value was lost by j_presper_eckert · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Way to go, Hostess management. Don't let the door hit you in your partially hydrogenated ass on the way out!
    Considering that their product has a shelf life best measured in geologic terms, and is often functionally identical to substances used in ancient Egyptian mummification practices, I think that nothing of value was lost.
    Except the jobs themselves, that is. It's going to be *such* a merry Christmas for their workforce this year.

    --
    Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
    1. Re:And nothing of value was lost by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Informative

      it wasn't Hostess management that did this. it was the Baker's Union. Hostess was in the midst of a managed reorganization to try and save it. Even the Teamsters union was going along with Hostess because they could see that it was this or no more jobs.

      The Baker's Union (and possibly you as well) is living in a Marxist fantasy land where behind every "evil proletariat oppressing capitalist" is an endless pile of money that he just won't share. Back in reality the money was gone and it was this, or liquidation. The Baker's union chose liquidation. Not just for themselves (about 5000 people) but for the OTHER 18000 employees (including Management) too! Don't blame management for something they didn't cause.

      Hostess will now be entering a court-ordered liquidation, and the brand rights will (if fate has a sense of humor) be sold to a non-union company in a right-to-work state. As it should be.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:And nothing of value was lost by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, all those unemployed twinks can now get find a job on Dice.com! (or craigslist casual sex m4m!)

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But would you rather lose your job after chistmas after you've loaded up on debt buying all the crap people expect as gifts?

    4. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Don't blame management for something they didn't cause.

      If a company can't make it selling Twinkies in Honey Boo Boo's country of origin, then it most certainly is the management's fault.

    5. Re:And nothing of value was lost by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      The average shelf life of a Twinkie is 7-10 days. They don't last more than 25. There's no weird chemistry, just they don't contain dairy products.
      The functional part of ancient Egyptian mummification is dehydration using salts.
      No need to pass on urban legends.
      http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/twinkies.asp is a relevant link.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    6. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twinkie's having a long shelf life is just a myth.

      Good to see Americans learning about food finally...

    7. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Bakers Unions shoes, I would have burned that motherfucker down too. There will be other bakeries, but the ex-Hostess CEO won't be running em.

      Which would be fine if every employee of Hostess belonged to the Bakers' Union. 13,000 didn't. So the Baker's Union decided to throw 13,000 of their fellow employees out of work because they didn't like a few Hostess managers at the top. Oh, but I guess they shouldn't care about their fellow employees who didn't belong to the union, because it's always "union first and screw the rest," right?

      And you seriously want me to think that the Bakers' Union are the good guys in this story? Screw that. You anti-capitalists want to blame on the rich folks for everything under the sun, and then, when you don't get your way, you throw a fit and taking it out on mass numbers of your fellow blue-collar workers just to put the shiv in a few rich guys. Love the hypocrisy. *Love* it.

    8. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it wasn't Hostess management that did this. it was the Baker's Union. Hostess was in the midst of a managed reorganization to try and save it. Even the Teamsters union was going along with Hostess because they could see that it was this or no more jobs.

      The Baker's Union (and possibly you as well) is living in a Marxist fantasy land where behind every "evil proletariat oppressing capitalist" is an endless pile of money that he just won't share. Back in reality the money was gone and it was this, or liquidation. The Baker's union chose liquidation. Not just for themselves (about 5000 people) but for the OTHER 18000 employees (including Management) too! Don't blame management for something they didn't cause.

      Hostess will now be entering a court-ordered liquidation, and the brand rights will (if fate has a sense of humor) be sold to a non-union company in a right-to-work state. As it should be.

      Have you even read Marx besides cherry picked quotes? Unions... are not Marxist.

      Show me a single union that existed in Soviet Russia? Show me a Cuban union? Even old style guilds are not Marxist.

      Marxists only support unions, the same way the mafia did, to wrest control of them (Or take money)- then they get rid of them. Because in a Marxist society no one has any rights other than to serve the state.

      Wanna know what is Marxist? (And also Fascist BTW): The elimination of unions and the right to collective bargaining. Which then places workers under the government dictatorship or (In a Fascist state) free to be exploited by business without the right to "not work" or "not work as a group".

      But I'm certain these apparent subtleties are lost by folks who listen to sound bites.

    9. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have missed the previous leveraged buyout and multiple bankruptcies...
      Would the company be profitable if it wasn't paying huge fees to the investment bank that forced them to borrow money to pay for their own purchase and pay off the bankers? The owners know that they can sell the brand even if they destroy the company... they'll even increase demand :)

      Your preconcieved notions do not constitute a crisis on my part.

    10. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's poor management for over a decade(look into their history), an explosion in the commodities market, and finally, and smallest, the payments due to employees retirement funds. The concessions the Bakers union refused(but teamsters accepted) were extremely insane, especially considering all upper management were getting at least 3 x salary bonuses in that same contract.

    11. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it was obviously all the managements fault. there is no possible way that them striking had anything to do with a company that has been in bankruptcy for 7 or 8 years, shutting its doors. no, couldn't happen. has to be the evil money grubbing executives. has to be... damn unions, so glad i live in a right to work state.

    12. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Back in reality the money was gone

      And you blame the baker's union for that?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't Texas (HQ, official location of the company) a right-to-work state already?

      Nice try, but there is something called facts.

      Now what was the Baker's union asking for: better salary and benefits. *What else is new* in this ago old battle between companies and their (if they have them) unions.If they were non-union, the employees would be either lemmings and the economy stagnates as mgt. gets richer (by not increase salaries to fit standard of living), or they would leave--hence forcing Hostess to go Chap11 anyway. They cannot ship jobs to another country since its food... we'll maybe twinkies.

    14. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the second bankruptcy this year. During the same time period, the CEO's salary was tripled and other executives saw major increases in salary as well. This is not a union being greedy and killing a properly run company.

    15. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, have you looked at the pay and bonuses of the their board of directors? They don't have an endless pile of money, but $125,000 a month salaries add up fast. That alone could employ 35 people a year.

    16. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's why the CEO's pay was tripled... right, it's all these insufferable workers in a Marxist fantasy world that have kept wages stagnant for 40 years while productivity soars.

    17. Re:And nothing of value was lost by DMiax · · Score: 1

      How many pay cuts would you be willing to accept before leaving the negotiations? The baker's union answer was two. At the third pay cut they decided the situation was not going to turn around.

    18. Re:And nothing of value was lost by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Do you know why the money was gone? The executives took it. They got an 80% pay raise despite the looming bankruptcy. They were asking the workers to sacrifice in order to keep their golden goose alive, but didn't want to share any of the eggs.

      In cases like this, ownership of the company should pass to the workers. They're the victims of the executives' greed.

    19. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think more than enough other posters have showed the evidence that this is just the last straw in a long process of deliberate or negligent mismanagement of the company. The union is being used as a scapegoat to take the bad PR for VC bleeding the company dry before selling off the assets.

      And people like you with a knee-jerk "unions are Marxists" mindset just bought it hook, line, and sinker.

      *slow clap*

    20. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      FYI: Honey Boo Boo is on TV because she is unusual.

    21. Re:And nothing of value was lost by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Her and her family are unusually obnoxious, but not unusually fat.

    22. Re:And nothing of value was lost by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I see this sentiment posted all over the place, but it's just not true. Twinkies do indeed have a shelf life. I've seen video of a 10 year old Twinkie being hit by a hammer, and it shatters into pieces like a rock. They don't have a "shelf life best measured in geologic terms." I can't find the video at the moment, but it's on Youtube, just search for it.

  23. Good riddens by Scowler · · Score: 3, Funny

    While I have some nostalgia over Twinkies, the fact remains the stuff is utter garbage.

    Honestly, this stuff makes other junk food like Cheetos and Pop Tarts look healthy in comparison.

    1. Re:Good riddens by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Honestly, this stuff makes other junk food like Cheetos and Pop Tarts look healthy in comparison.

      and thats the way we like it

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Good riddens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had my first Twinkie a few moths ago, what a let down!

      I remember seeing ads for them in Archie comics as a kid, and wondering abut the magical cream-filled cakes.

      Now, in New Zealand Twinkies have never been sold, as far as I know, until recently.

      They turned out to be altogether disgusting.

  24. Woody Harrelson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is devastated by the news!

  25. Won't be missed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nasty corn syrup and whipped animal fat things... I haven't eaten one in almost three decades.

  26. When Hostess closes.. by tramp · · Score: 2

    what happens to those pensions? They will be cutted anyway I suppose? Does not sound like the Bakers Union have a clue.

    1. Re:When Hostess closes.. by petteyg359 · · Score: 0

      And what happens to those pensions if they agree to the contract that has no pensions? Congratulations on being an effing dimwit.

    2. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the CEO of hostess was unwilling to give up his 7 figure income....

      Yeah, Boo fricking hoo for the rich assholes that refuse to adjust their income first to save the company.

    3. Re:When Hostess closes.. by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      It didn't matter either way petteyg. The pensions were dead anyway. They were utterly unaffordable and had already hit the cutting room floor. At this point it was either "save your job and get a 401k" or "lose your job and get jack squat". The Baker's unions chose jack squat for themselves and the other 18000 employees and management at Hostess.

      As an example of how bad it was there, the Teamsters Union, probably one of the strongest Unions in the US took the deal Hostess offered them, which was the same as they offered the Bakers union.

      The bakers union refused to face reality, and 5000 people in a union sunk a multi-billion dollar company and put 18000 other people out of work.

      Who's the effing dimwit now?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    4. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contract didn't take away pensions, just reduced the benefits. RTFA

    5. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go to work every day and contribute to a 401K like lots of other people?

    6. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If no one ever loses at chicken, then why play chicken?

    7. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cutted

      What happens to verbs mutilated by engrish?

    8. Re:When Hostess closes.. by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Who's the effing dimwit now?

      I'm going to go with "the guy who thinks climate change is made up."

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    9. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the bankruptcy court will maintain much of their outstanding debts will be covered through liquidation. You do know a 401k is unrealistic for someone in that profession, right? It's 18k employees total, by the way.

      As for that deal, it also gave 3 x salary bonuses to the upper management. I wouldn't have accepted it either. The people who mismanaged the company for that past 10+ years deserve extra cash?

      What sunk a multi-billion dollar company was extremely poor management, the commodities market, and outstanding debts to employees pensions, as well as 700 Million owed on a loan from a previous vulture capitalist takeover. But skew it however you like.

    10. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Effing dimwit?

      That'd still be you buddy. You need to go 'study up' on how management had been running the company. Multiple bankruptcies in one year with big pay increases for the top execs. Yeah, its definitely those big mean unions and not a company being run into the ground a bad and/or looting management.

    11. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the deal really was horrible, then the company deserves to go bankrupt. That will create a market void that can be filled by the ramping-up of new/other companies that can manage to make a profit while treating their workers reasonably.

      And as they ramp up, they will probably need to hire some of the now-available workers.

    12. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The Baker's unions chose

      The management chose to offer the bakers a deal in which management didn't share in any of the pain. The bakers were right to reject it, and management across the country should learn a lesson from this.

      The bakers union refused to face reality

      Again, management spat in the faces of the unions by not taking any cuts themself. If management refuses to treat labor with dignity, they deserve to lose their company.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bakers union refused to face reality, and 5000 people in a union sunk a multi-billion dollar company and put 18000 other people out of work.
      Right. Why is it the last person in the line of screwups is the one to blame? Hostess has been in business for decades, and had a union for probably as long. Why now is the union to just automatically blame for the failure of the company?

      In any failure this big, there's always plenty of blame to go around.

    14. Re:When Hostess closes.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "which was the same as they offered the Bakers union."
      no, it wasn't.

      Maybe the CEO shouldn't have been given a 1.5 Million dollar pay increase? That's 300 dollar per employee in the bakers union. The average pay being 30K a year.
      That's just ONE of the increases in upper management salary.

      This is clearly wall street investors stripping the company for brand resale.
      IT's pretty much one of two patterns:
      Go in.
      Give CEO and management large bonuses or pay increase.
      Strip employees pay and benefits.
      Blame unions when they don't come crawling back for crumbs.

      Or if people do come back, continue the stripping until no one can afford to work there, then sell.
      Selling the brands without the overhead means more money for the venture capitalists.
      You can see it time and time again over the last 60 years.
      You know whee steel left the country in the 70s? you think union, right? no. Management sold key controlled technologies over seas to Japan. The got there million, closed the plant and blamed the unions.

      .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:When Hostess closes.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ha, nice. +1 funny..and correct.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      401K's are a complete scam. The Teamsters Union caved. Thankfully the Bakers Union did the right thing. The real issue is not a 401K it is inflated CEO payscales. We need strong unions to stand up workers rights. You better believe that companies all over the country were watching this situation closely and that they will be a bit more careful should a similar situation arise.

    17. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I'll take a pile of retirement money that my company can't pillage over one that they can any day.

      Anyone working in the private sector today who thinks they've got a guaranteed pension is living in some sort of fantasy land.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    18. Re:When Hostess closes.. by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the money you get from unemployment is based off of your recent income. If they took the pay cut and were fired a year from now, their unemployment checks would be based off of the post pay-cut amount wouldn't it?

      If the company was up shit creek and the employees knew they were going to have to find new jobs in a few years anyway, it's probably best for them to get fired now and take the unemployment.

      Then again, perhaps the actual best solution would have been to look for new jobs starting 6 months ago while still working there at full pay.

    19. Re:When Hostess closes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i was owner of that new company, yes i would hire old workers off course, and also off course there would be no option of unionising, and off course as low education/experience needed workforce they would be offered minimal wage ($20K/year i believe in USA as opposed to $100K/year some of them are getting currently) and minimal state mandated health and pension plan, not a cent more, actually when i think about it if i was owner of this company workers would get much bigger stick than they do now

    20. Re:When Hostess closes.. by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Others have said that he worked for one dollar.

  27. Fueled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight: I am not, will not, and never have been fueled by Ding Dongs. In fact, I find them very discouraging to tell you the truth. I must also disclaim my lack of interest in TwinkTits and Swingerz. Let me also say, that if you think those things are Baked, think again. I believe they are instant chemical reactions achieved when sugar is mixed with stewed mattress foam and morphine.

  28. Change! by Antipater · · Score: 1

    The Twinkie is a symbol of steadfastness, of resistance to change. No matter the environment, it remains obdurate and unimpressed. The recipe has not changed in decades. This must be Obama's first step towards his promises of change! Next targets: the McDonald's french fry and The Legend of Zelda.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
    1. Re:Change! by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

      The Twinkie is fucking stoic!

      --
      Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
    2. Re:Change! by kryliss · · Score: 1

      Silly customer, you can not hurt the twinkie..

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  29. Now we'll have to eat Snowballs :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we'll have to eat Snowballs or drive across country in search of Twinkies.

  30. And nothing was lost by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know this is being framed as a unions / management story, and that's fine and at least partly true, but really: Hostess is losing money because their products are horribly unhealthy and people are wising up about it. People wonder why Americans are fat, and the reason is always because companies like Hostess haven't gone out of business sooner.

    When people learn about junk like healthy eating, companies like Hostess need to either reform or get replaced. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with a company being replaced.

    I want to be clear that I don't dislike Hostess, but it appears that they have served their purpose.

    1. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel for the workers, but I'm glad that some % of the garbage Americans shove into their mouthes will be gone. Wonder Bread? Twinkies? These are utter garbage.

    2. Re:And nothing was lost by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      What are they supposed to do? Make free range Twinkies?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:And nothing was lost by matthewd · · Score: 2

      Well that, and I looked at the store snack section last night, and the Hostess products are twice the price of other options available. So, if you want a Twinkie fix and the store brand is just as good (I don't know if that's the case, I don't eat Twinkies) why pay more especially with the economy being so bad right now? Same with the fruit pies, Ho-Ho's et al.

    4. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the 17 bakeries that churn out 500 million twinkies a year were brought down because nobody wanted to buy them? And not because the bakers refused to come in to work?

    5. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Mr. ColdWetDog. They are supposed to die.

    6. Re:And nothing was lost by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      $1 for two (300 calories). That's a pretty normal price for a snack. Cheaper than Doritos.

      Any fool on the street can fit a 300 calorie snack into a healthy diet. You could even lose a lot of weight with a diet composed largely of Twinkies. There's nothing unhealthy about it, other than that it's empty calories.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    7. Re:And nothing was lost by berashith · · Score: 1

      They did make Nature's Pride breads. This was the only bread that I would buy from a regular grocery store, as I am way too picky over what I put in my body. I normally buy bread that is made fresh in a farmers market, but on the occasions that I needed to buy from the regular store, this was it. Some of these breads were still crap (you can easily tell if it is real by lifting it... wonder bread weighs nothing for a reason) , but it shows they were trying .

      They had the snacks that no one wanted because people wanted healthier stuff, and they had the bread no one wanted because people wanted the crap on that aisle. tough spot to get out of.

    8. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Product line diversification would be a good start. They already had whole wheat bread in their portfolio. But there wasn't anything else at their outlet stores that I would touch with a 10 foot pole.

    9. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason that Twinkies last so long. Bacteria doesn't touch it, so it stays "good" for years. There's a middle ground between free range/organic and stuff that mother nature won't touch.

      I'm not one to say that junk food is inherently bad; it's really about moderation. However, certain products bring junk food to a whole new level, where no amount of it is good for you. Twinkies were one of those products.

    10. Re:And nothing was lost by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's very unhealthy. Sugar and all.
      Doesn't mean you can't indulge in moderation.
      Yeah. loosing weight is just a math and will power issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:And nothing was lost by geekoid · · Score: 1

      American are fat because american eat to much. Hostess didn't sneak into peoples house and put twinkies on their night stand.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:And nothing was lost by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      People like treats occasionally, and Hostess had the recipe. Hostess cupcakes are a delight. The most recognizable competitor where I live is "Little Debbie", whose cupcakes are piles of chocolate goo.

      The Hostess snacks can only be considered unhealthy if eaten in excess. It is not the case that their products were concentrated poison. Someone would have noticed the corpses.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:And nothing was lost by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But your average snack cake from Little Debbie (McKee Foods) are usually under 50 cents. And that's also a name brand.

    14. Re:And nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sold all my Coca Cola stock this year. I predict removal from the DOW before 2035.

  31. Grupo Bimbo (pronounced "beem-bo") by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
  32. Cholesterol levels are adequately high by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    Thank you, but I top off with a pulled pork sandwich or plate of deep-fried pepperoni when needed.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    1. Re:Cholesterol levels are adequately high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, but I top off with a pulled pork sandwich or plate of deep-fried pepperoni when needed.

      Where are you going to get the bun for your pulled pork sandwich now? Wonder bread is closing too you know.

  33. Aw, man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we're supposed to settle for deep-fried Snickers bars?

    1. Re:Aw, man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never, or the Scots win.

  34. Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos?

    Twinkies suck. Ho-Hos are where it's at. I freely admit though, I haven't eaten a Ho-Ho since... maybe my early 20s. I have many fond memories of them from childhood though. Oh, the sweet, savored pleasure of unwinding them. The thin layers of chocolate that would flake off the outside. That last bit of thin cake and cream core...

    Alas, the desire for extreme sugar waned with youth. Health consciousness took the front seat. Would it be so bad to take a walk down that aisle just one last time? Maybe not; but it's raining today. Besides. That shit's bad for you.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Nah go European style, that's what a twinkie should be.

    2. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      An eclair like that with coffee, now there's the adult indulgence that replaced the Twinkie for me. Usually it's just a cookie or something. Independently baked treats like the one in your link are available here, but they're $3-$4/each, while a locally baked cookie is $1, and some cake slices are $2.50. It's a bit hard to justify spending the dough on dough when I can make coffee and cinnamon toast at home for less than $1. Anyway, I digress. Eclairs are more subtle usually... they're nice; but not a flavor explosion. Usually the custard is just... sweet and creamy, meh. Whatever. Not worth the calories. OTOH, I had what I thought would be a relatively bland almond croisant from a nearby bakery a few weeks ago. It was filled with custard though, and the combination was outstanding. That's the exception though, and when I went back they weren't making them that day. That's the downside of good food--it happens irregularly. The bakery will be making different things on different days. I could go out of my way and order them special, certainly; but then I'd probably end up ordering special tests from doctors too.

      Anyway, a fresh-baked eclair is not a comparable to a Ho-Ho or Twinkie. You can't store the eclair in your desk for a month. Different tools for different purposes.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos?

      You can think of the Ho-Hos. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying a private moment with my ding-dong.

    4. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by Rick+Richardson · · Score: 1

      Ho-Ho's are 33 cents apiece (a "Ho").

      Little Debbie's Swiss Rolls (Ho-Ho equivalent) are 15 cents apiece.

      Little Debbie rocks! 

    5. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      They usually put clotted cream in eclairs, I don't think I've ever met one filled with custard?

    6. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      An éclaire like that was a childhood indulgence :-D. I generally had to share one with my sister (not unreasonable, really).

      I'm not sure how much they cost here. A crap one from a supermarket is $0.50 (that's still using real cream though). Probably $2-3, but a luxury bakery will sell them for double that.

      The mass-produced what-sell-by-date? thing is still available, e.g. http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=254948221 (on http://www.cadburycakes.co.uk/range/cadbury-mini-rolls/ "THESE CAKES DO NOT CONTAIN DAIRY CREAM". Also I note that the serving is one roll, 27g, and the serving for a Ho-Ho is three rolls, 85g! http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-hostess-ho-hos-i113324 )

    7. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was custard and wiki agrees. Clotted cream is only something I've heard of in the context of British food. Are you from there?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      No, I am not. I've never had or seen an eclair with custard in it, always with cream. :)

    9. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If by 'Rocks' mean tastes like a horrid imitation.

      I would rather by the few nickles more and get something of quality.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Won't somebody please think of the Ho-Hos? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Twinkies shelf life is 25 days.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  35. There will be more Twinkies by pwileyii · · Score: 1

    Just like "The Sharper Image" and "Circuit City," the Twinkie name will live on. It is a name that is worth probably around half a billion dollars per year to a company that is able to manage it correctly. There may be a few months in which Twinkies are off the shelves, but they'll be back.

    1. Re:There will be more Twinkies by sxltrex · · Score: 2
    2. Re:There will be more Twinkies by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 1

      Dude, bad example.

  36. That's okay. by Chas · · Score: 1

    The twinkies available now will be good for most of the next 657,000 years due to all the preservatives.

    They'll just get a bit crunchier after the first millennium or so.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  37. Union logic? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's this kind of attitude of unions in the US which makes me say most have outlived their usefulness and something I had to explain when I lived in Germany to the Europeans that the union in the US are nothing like the unions in Europe. Many of the unions in the US are basically racketeers with a bully complex. In Europe if jobs had to be lost, usually the Union would step in and help provide those members with job training to find a new job. If that's what unions did in the US, I'd probably be more supportive.

    What union really thinks that it's better for a company to go out of business and everyone in the union lose their job than to try and save as many as possible? Because a union worker making $0 isn't contributing any dues.

    When the hostess brand gets bought, do the unions think the new owners are going to do? Maybe they'll keep the old benefits, but only hire back half the workers.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:Union logic? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. Sometimes it really is better to draw a line, say "no," and move on towards something better. If workers continue caving to never-ending demands for lower wages and benefits, then there is no floor. If a company can't make enough money to keep producing what it sells, then it should go out of business. It happens. People haven't stopped needing to eat food and the jobs lost here will be recouped producing some other food, which can't be any worse than twinkies.

    2. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are thinking the brand buyer will hire them, they may be in for a shock. The brand buyer probably isn't buying the facilities, just the name and the rights to make the things themselves, possibly in existing facilities. Any more than a handful (not even half) of the workers being picked up would be a shock to me.

    3. Re:Union logic? by capedgirardeau · · Score: 2

      This had little to do with unions.

      This is just typical vulture capitalism. Hedge funds bought the company, loaded it with debt to repay the 1 percenters and are now selling off the corpse and union busting all in one smooth move.

      Please read and learn instead of playing into the hands of those that would pit workers against workers.
      http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/16/1162235/-Private-equity-owned-Hostess-blames-striking-workers-as-it-liquidates

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    4. Re:Union logic? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      It's this kind of attitude of unions in the US which makes me say most have outlived their usefulness and something I had to explain when I lived in Germany to the Europeans that the union in the US are nothing like the unions in Europe. Many of the unions in the US are basically racketeers with a bully complex.

      It's exactly the same attitude you see in US politics. From top to bottom it's about compromise being seen as a weakness. It's about the "my way or the highway" mentality. That kind of reasoning gets us nowhere. Which incidently may soon be where you'll be able to buy a twinkie or ding-dong.

    5. Re:Union logic? by Quila · · Score: 1

      From the first article:

      But in truth there are no black hats or white knights in this tale. It's about shades of gray, where obstinacy, miscalculation, and lousy luck connived to create corporate catastrophe. Almost none of the parties involved would speak on the record. Still, it's clear from court documents and background interviews with a range of sources that practically nobody involved can shoot straight: The Teamsters remain stuck in a time warp, unwilling to sufficiently adapt in a competitive marketplace. The PE firm failed to turn Hostess around after taking it over. The hedgies can't see beyond their internal rates of return. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

      Private equity firms like this are not the hostile company busters of the 80s. They buy into failing companies (and Hostess was failing before they came along), and try to return them to profitability. They make the most money when the company turns around and becomes long-term profitable, because then they pull in the return on the investment for years. If they can't turn it around, then they let the company go bankrupt (as it would have anyway) and logically try to cut their losses as much as possible.

      Unfortunately, a major obstacle to profitability is often unrealistic deals with unions made by previous management decades ago, deals that in the current environment are bleeding the company dry, leading to inevitable banktupcy. So you have a choice, just let the company die, or everybody work together to salvage something from it.

      The only thing typical about "vulture capitalism" is how the term is grossly misued by those promoting class warfare.

    6. Re:Union logic? by berashith · · Score: 1

      As much as I want to agree, there is a point where a company has to scale back. Reduce number of workers, or hours available. If a union does not allow any reductions or flexibility, then management has to start playing rough. I dont know if that happened in this case. The reduction is salary per employee may have been the only option as they couldnt keep the same dollar of salaries but apply it to less workers.

    7. Re:Union logic? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      When the hostess brand gets bought...

      If it gets bought, it will re-open overseas. Way to go Unions!!! *golf clap*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step out of your bubble for a moment, Thatcherite, and realize that unions are roughly equivalent the world over; you've just been trained to dislike the unions back home.

    9. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's class warfare, alright, but it's the rich class that is waging it, and they are winning. Why do you chastise people for attempting for defend themselves?

    10. Re:Union logic? by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      When a union bullies the company, it's because it worked in the past.

      Don't blame the union. They are just the symptom, not the disease. Blame the inept company that caved in to the union's demands and thereby gave the union a reason to exist.

      We need fewer companies that nurture racketeering, bullying unions.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    11. Re:Union logic? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      First off, as someone has already pointed out, this whole situation is due to a venture capitalist arrangement ala Blain Capital style.

      That aside, there are a lot of unions in the US and they don't all work the same. Some are bullies but many are not. You only ever hear about the bullies though because the moderate unions aren't considered newsworthy.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    12. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Have you read ANYTHING about the company? Or do you just stop when you here a union was involved?

      Management has put the company through multiple recent bankruptcies, this is the second bankruptcy this year. During their bankruptcies they've built up private equity deb, tripled the CEOs salary, and given massive(up to 80% or so) raises to other execs. At the same time, they are cutting pay and benefits for the workers.

    13. Re:Union logic? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's this kind of attitude of unions in the US which makes me say most have outlived their usefulness

      It's the attitude of management that they don't need to share in the cuts that they ask labor to accept that makes me say unions have never been needed more than they are now.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Union logic? by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      I realize folks are in a panic over losing Twinkies and Wonder Bread, but just take in for a moment the following tidbit of information:

      Hostess Executives provided themselves 70% raises last year. Today they announce they're closing the company because their rank-and-file workers refused to take an 8% pay cut. Consider who will be hurt by closing the company. (Hint: it won't be the executives.)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    15. Re:Union logic? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's pretty well documented.
      And union are the fall guys.
      On the plus side, the CEO got a 300% raise last year.
      Also, they had already cut a lot of things out of the bakers compensation.

      Hostess is being striped with the aid of venture capitalists.
      Well, the one in America, apparently they will still function in Canada.
      That right, the ones not in the hands of venture capitalist are making an effort to change management styles.

      It will get sold, and then parted and the CEO, the Board and the venture capitalist will make millions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can not cave in to pressure from corporations. I agree with you timeOday. Unions might not be perfect, but they are a balancing force in the employer employee landscape. Companies are required to return as much as possible to thier share holders. So based on that obligation they must try to keep labor costs as low as possible or face SEC sanctions, fines etc. Unions balance that equation.

    17. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average pay for the union bakers is about $46,000 a year, all for loading sacks of flour, sugar and lard into a big tub. This is a high pay, low skill job requiring little education or mental ability. They showed how clueless they were by voting against their own best interests led by a union that cares not a whit for the worker but rather only used these shlubs to create fear in the hearts of the union members working for other companies. The union bosses are the real villains in this tale.

    18. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Sometimes it really is better to draw a line, say "no," and move on towards something better. If workers continue caving to never-ending demands for lower wages and benefits, then there is no floor. If a company can't make enough money to keep producing what it sells, then it should go out of business. It happens. People haven't stopped needing to eat food and the jobs lost here will be recouped producing some other food, which can't be any worse than twinkies.

      I'll bet my 401K against your pension that the jobs lost here will be recouped by nonunion ones with fewer benefits. These "bakers" are not all skilled tradespeople who are difficult to replace. A good many of them are just technicians who run machines.

      I like unions in principle, but the ones in the US seem to be totally divorced from reality.

    19. Re:Union logic? by hey! · · Score: 1

      The moral you get from this story depends on where you start the narrative. If you start with the most recent strike, *sure* you get the moral "unions are stubbornly stupid". If you start the last time Hostess was unquestionably successful, the moral is "management was a bunch of greedy sociopaths."

      Hostess was a thriving unionized business until the 70s, when it was acquired by a computer rental company with no experience in bakery, food or manufacturing. It was merged with a number of other food businesses and management had difficulty integrating these new divisions successfully.

      In 2001, management decided (over the objections of its own bakers) to reformulate its successful bread lines for extended shelf life. Unfortunately the enzymes added to the bread gave it an unpleasant, gluey consistency. Sales plummeted, and in 2004 the company had its first bankruptcy.

      With the help of *union concessions*, the company emerged from Chapter 11. Unable to service its debt and invest in the business, management closed many bakeries and stopped replacing trucks in its huge delivery fleet. Revenues dropped and expenses rose. Armed with union concessions on pay and benefits, in 2009 management turned to investment bankers to take the company private. This unfortunately saddled the company with almost a billion dollars in debt to private equity firms. In 2011 management was unable to service the debt it used to take the company private, and reneged on its part of the concession deal: continuing to pay into employee pension funds. At the same time management gave itself an 80% raise and the CEO two million dollar severance package, then filed for Chapter 11 again.

      This year the unions *again* offered concessions in pay and benefits, provided that management maintain its contracted contributions to retirement plans. During negotiations, management threatened mass layoffs while publicly denying it had any such plans. After almost a year of negotiation, the unions struck. Management *instantly* pulled the plug on the business -- a move it had clearly planned in advance.

      So what emerges here isn't a story of uncooperative unions strangling a successful business. It's the story of new management running a once successful business into the ground, then doing everything it could to milk more money out of the business while saddling it with debt and cutting wages and benefits.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Union logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People haven't stopped needing to eat food

      Twinkies and the other garbage (even WonderBread) are barely food. Only in America could this garbage be considered food. Empty calories that make people fat, nothing more. Nobody needs Twinkies, and if people would open their pallets a bit, nobody should *want* them.

    21. Re:Union logic? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Did unions kill Hostess? No, they merely drove the last nail into the coffin. Management is ultimately responsible the company's demise. Management decides product mix and sales forecasts. Management controls debt load and production capacity. And company stewardship make the fateful decision to give the CEO a 225% pay raise just months prior to bankruptcy.

      Unfortunately the news media will not report that aspect of the story. They will perpetuate the story that the union forced liquidation of a great American icon. Rank and file labor across the country will get indignant and heap hate onto the union employees for their role all the while remaining blissfully ignorant about the terrible missteps by those who actually controlled the company.

      Ultimately, the only control that the union had was whether or not they went to work in the morning. Managment made all the other decisions about the fate of the company.

    22. Re:Union logic? by Quila · · Score: 1

      It's the Democrat politicians who are waging it. And it's not to the benefit of the poor or detriment of the rich, it's just so they can get the votes of the ignorant masses to stay in office. The rich still fund their campaigns, the politicians still loyal to them, not the people.

  38. Laying off 18,500 workers - that's a big Twinkie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more deep fried twinkies! What will we eat at the state fair...

  39. Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by sethstorm · · Score: 0, Troll

    The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.

    Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Grayhand · · Score: 1

      The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.

      Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.

      It's what Romney wanted for the auto companies. He said the unions were the problem so let them go through bankruptcy.

    2. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by j-turkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only reason Hostess decided to close is to use bankruptcy law to attack the unions - and replace them with employer-supported unions such as contract workers from staffing agencies. This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.

      Get rid of the provision that voids union contracts on bankruptcy and make Right to Work apply to contractors and part-time labor.

      I was under the impression that Hostess were out of money, no longer profitable, and could no longer afford to pay the earlier negotiated wages and benefits. So you're suggesting that Hostess was doing just fine, but the whole bankruptcy was just a conspiracy to screw the unions?

      Please tell me if I understand what you're saying: Hostess did not offer ALL of their employees a package that would allow them to get credit from the bank and continue operations, without laying off their entire workforce? Hostess didn't offer a package that their (larger-than-the-baker's-union) Teamster union agreed upon? If they had plenty of money and were still profitable, how would a bankruptcy court (and their auditors) grant them the status of chapter 11? Chapter 7? Or...in the case of a legitimate Chapter 7 bankruptcy, how can Hostess replace their former union workers with contract workers from staffing agencies when they are no longer in business?

      I think that we may have different understandings of how bankruptcy works. They are liquidating - Hostess is no longer a company. Their assets (e.g. brands, recipes, factories) will be sold to pay off their debt. This will be overseen by the courts - and Hostess' creditors will likely be paid back a fraction of what they are owed. The private shareholders will be the last to get paid out of the liquidation, and it is very likely that they will get nothing. Am I wrong about this?

      If we have such different understandings of how bankruptcy works, I'm not sure that we will agree on how (or if) it should be reformed. I suggest reading up on bankruptcy. If we're talking about the same thing, it will be easier to have an informed discussion.

      --

      -Turkey

    3. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bankruptcy is a necessary process. A better solution would be to require the executive staff be replaced after a bankruptcy of a large corporation like this. Then the executives might fight a little harder to find common ground.

    4. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no. Try again. If that were true, they also wouldn't be selling off all of their assets, which they are doing. They wouldn't be able to hire a bunch of temporary workers and keep in business if they also sold off all their buildings, ovens, machinery, etc. Hostess is CLOSING THE COMPANY. That's not a negotiation tactic, it's done.

      Heck, if the Teamsters of all people are siding with the company, telling the bakers union they need to back down a bit, that alone provides legitimacy.

    5. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day. How you got modded +4 Interesting is beyond me. Chapter 7 bankruptcy means that you turn out the lights and it is all over. No reorganizing contracts or attacking the poor defenseless unions. Everyone is out of a job. The only consolation to the people laid off because of this closing is that those not on strike will likely receive unemployment while those on strike won't see a dime of unemployment.

    6. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There will be no executive staff. Hostess is dead. Pushing up daisies. It is an ex-company.

    7. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think the general concern is that while the shareholders will lose all their money, the people who are effectively running the company have extracted that value through fees/etc. It sounds like a variation on hollywood accounting - the company is worth nothing, but the people running the company extracted all the value and can now make the company bankrupt to discharge all kinds of liabilities, then use the money they accumulated to either buy back the assets and repeat, or they can go do the same to some other company.

    8. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good those bloated lazy union cocksuckers have been milking the fuck out of that titty for far too long. Maybe we wouldn't have had to bail those sacks of shit out.

    9. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      I see. However, there is no company anymore. Those who were running the company couldn't have extracted much, could they? Any assets they had in the company are gone. This also wasn't a case of a holding company gutting a company by selling off the assets and running off with a whole bunch of money...all under the guise of a bankruptcy court. I do not believe that there are any facts to back a scenario like that (but if there are, feel free to show me that I'm wrong).

      The existing union contracts were part of what was killing the company - of course, there were many other factors. While I have not read their Chapter 11 reorganization plans, I'm sure that these other factors were addressed; otherwise, no bank would have lent Hostess Brands the money to reorganize and recover. Now, rather than preserving the unions, a competitor (presumably without the same union contracts) will buy their brands and continue production of their products with more efficient factories.

      --

      -Turkey

    10. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what "Right to Work" is.

    11. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just bought the Zingers recipe for $8 on ebay. Turns out it's made of people!

    12. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by sethstorm · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the ultimate buyer of the assets of the company, not the now-scuttled company.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    13. Re:Hostess: A case for bankruptcy & RTW reform by will_die · · Score: 1

      FYI, they did go through bankruptcy under Obama.
      The difference under Romney was that the government would be higher up in the list of people to be repaid.

  40. I sense a disturbance.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    It's as if 90,000,000 fat sweaty nerds all cried out at once..... and are still whining.....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I sense a disturbance.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a nerd (and an old one) and I've never heard of this company nor about its products - not being in the US may be the reason of that, but even then:

      What is this doing here at Slashdot? Why is it of importance to nerds? Do Twinkies come with free logic gates or what?

    2. Re:I sense a disturbance.... by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      It's as if 90,000,000 fat sweaty nerds all cried out at once.....and where silenced....when they stuffed cheetos in their face.

      FTFY

    3. Re:I sense a disturbance.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm a nerd (and an old one) and I've never heard of this company nor about its products - not being in the US may be the reason of that

      Probably true, but odds are good that if you were a fat, sweaty nerd some of both would be because of twinkies... which is why it's important to nerds. Remember, Slashdot started out as Taco's blog, it's somewhat Americentric, and that's not a bad thing. Isn't there a brit-centered tech blog forum somewhere, with a lot more "u"s?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I sense a disturbance.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Twinkies Fully Yellow?

  41. remember by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Remember Twinkie, The Kid? R.I.P.

  42. Eulogy for a Twinkie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Enriched wheat flour, sugar, corn syrup, niacin, water, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable and/or animal shortening – containing one or more of partially hydrogenated soybean, cottonseed and canola oil, and beef fat, dextrose, whole eggs, modified corn starch, cellulose gum, whey, leavenings (sodium acid pyrophosphate, baking soda, monocalcium phosphate), salt, cornstarch, corn flour, corn syrup, solids, mono and diglycerides, soy lecithin, polysorbate 60, dextrin, calcium caseinate, sodium stearoyl lactylate, wheat gluten, calcium sulphate, natural and artificial flavors, caramel color, yellow #5, red #40.

    RIP!

  43. Re:Laying off 18,500 workers - that's a big Twinki by Biff98 · · Score: 1

    Fried Ice Cream Fried Snickers Bars Fried Bacon Fried Pickles Fried Avocado Fried Coca Cola Fried Key Lime Pie it doesn't really end....

  44. I felt a great disturbance in the force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's as if millions of nerds, comic book store operators and World of Warcraft players suddenly cried out and then were silenced.. (as they rushed to their stores to secure loads of Twinkies and Ding-dongs)

  45. Re:NO... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    I would be more worried about carcinogens and blood sugar level myself

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  46. Victory! by ddt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hostess has been a major arms dealer in the war against diabetes in the US. It's great to see them finally fail.

    Next up: McDonalds? Dare we dream?

    The US gov't should be heavily taxing food this unhealthy or subsidizing food that is healthy. Neither of these is happening, and it's fucking ridiculous.

    1. Re:Victory! by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Dare we dream?

      People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.

    2. Re:Victory! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.

      That's right, and people have damn well avoided Hostess products. Maybe they will damn well avoid McDonald's at some point in the future and then McDonald's will damn well close, and possibly be replaced by a business that will damn well serve healthier food.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Victory! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Because people everywhere should conform to *my* ideas of how they should live their lives!

      Eating healthy is great. I eat very little snack food or fast food myself. (Although I am very much a carnivore.) But that's my choice, for me. You don't get to make that choice for other people.

    4. Re:Victory! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Original thought:
      Fuck you.

      Get your liberal nanny state out of the lives of others.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Victory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then they pissed on it, they pissed on their neighbours, they pissed on their neighbours neighbors, and finally they pissed all over eachother. And they say it feels good.

    6. Re:Victory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dare we dream?

      People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.

      That's fine, as long as you don't externalize the cost of your choices to the rest of us. Health care premiums are high enough as it is, and if over half the population are fat, lazy bastards that the healthier of us have to pay for then your liberty is a form of "slavery" on others.

      So if you're willing to pay $20,000 a year for being fat, and I can pay $5,000 for being healthy, that's fine. But unfortunately HMOs like to bilk the rest of us to recoup the higher claim rates for heart attacks and diabetes treatment.

    7. Re:Victory! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The US gov't should be heavily taxing food this unhealthy or subsidizing food that is healthy. Neither of these is happening, and it's fucking ridiculous.

      Fascism: a political and economic system in which property is privately owned in name only, but is controlled by the government.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Victory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy being a unhealthy/a fatty. I'll continue running marathons and shopping at Whole Foods.

    9. Re:Victory! by Ritchie70 · · Score: 2

      Or, maybe McDonald's will continue to evolve their menu (chicken, salads, and real fruit smoothies for example) to meet their customers' demands.

      Ronald is no clown.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    10. Re:Victory! by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      Neither Hostess nor McDonald's forces you to eat their products.

      Eat what you want. If you want free range apples, eat free range apples.

      If you want Twinkies and Big Macs, eat Twinkies and Big Macs.

      Personally, I eat a lot of produce AND the occasional Big Mac. Maybe once a year I buy a small package of Twinkies.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    11. Re:Victory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.

      Absolutely.

      Stop subsidizing some of America's farmers to grow certain types of food.

      Alternatively, if you're going to subsidize food production, subsidize food that is a bit healthier.

  47. Hostess go the way of Kodak? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Hostess (like Kodak), maybe they should have considered the same couple decades ago with more emphasis on healthy eating? That's a tough call (tougher if executives wanting to pad themselves with million dollar bonuses). OTOH in someways it doesn't seem in real practical terms we are working on more healthy eating as US population getting more obese. But maybe it depends on what culture (higher ups as compared to working stiffs in urban cities). I cannot help but think of a PBS show few years ago which this person described how society emphasizes unhealthy eating habits by constant promotion of fast food that is loaded with way too much protein and fat in easy to get quantities. He suggested a national program to discourage eating unhealthy foods like programs that discourage smoking. Fast food is a huge industry so that's a big lobby to deal with. However, circumstances can put a big company out of business.

    There was a time when camera film was The Thing and Kodak ruled. But along came digital technology that made film irrelevant. What should Kodak have done? Some say as far back as 1980s use their huge cash reserves to buy new technology startups and get into something besides film. I was reading Richard Elkus' book "Winner Take All" which it described there were people way back when looking into digital cameras (they didn't call it that but were considering emerging technologies i.e. ICs, video recording, etc. and how it can be put together).

    It seems Hostess was a large infrastructure with a lot of people that have gone down the drain like what used to be in Rochester NY. A significant loss.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Hostess go the way of Kodak? by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      We're not focused on healthier eating; we're focused on what marketing makes us THINK is healthier eating.

      Example: McDonalds got rid of the supersize and added salads, it's totally healthier now. Don't go actually looking at the nutritional facts of those salads, it's salad so it has to be good for you right? Do you want extra dressing with that? Pair it with a Diet Coke and you're practically Richard Simmons!

    2. Re:Hostess go the way of Kodak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "film was The Thing and Kodak ruled. But along came digital technology that made film irrelevant."

      The sad part of this is that it was Kodak that made the first digital camera in their labs. They just could not turn that invention into a business, so someone else did.

    3. Re:Hostess go the way of Kodak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fabulous!

    4. Re:Hostess go the way of Kodak? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Or just drop their price. People will still eat junk if it's cheap enough, and they were always the most expensive brand of cheap snack foods.

  48. This explains why they were so hard to find. by TCQuad · · Score: 2

    That grocery store was fully stocked. It was odd that they ran out of one particular item. Now, however, it makes perfect sense! Twinkies were discontinued, then zombies showed up, and now Tallahassee can't find any.

  49. OH THE HUMANITY by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    I made this pic when I heard the news today:

    https://i.minus.com/jbbRIi8sgiGgHs.jpg

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:OH THE HUMANITY by JMonty42 · · Score: 1

      Did slashdot somehow redirect me to reddit without me realizing it?

    2. Re:OH THE HUMANITY by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Did slashdot somehow redirect me to reddit without me realizing it?

      You must be old here.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. Can't make money? by dirk · · Score: 2

    I fear for what this world has become is a company is so inept that it can't make money selling fat, lard, and chocolate to Americans...

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:Can't make money? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      I fear for what this world has become is a company is so inept that it can't make money selling fat, lard, and chocolate to Americans...

      Tough choice for the mods here: Funny or Insightful?

    2. Re:Can't make money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Somehow you managed to miss "sugar", "sodium" and "preservatives", which are pretty much all their crap contained, yet apparently used the word "lard" with no idea of what it actually means...

    3. Re:Can't make money? by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Do the Twinkie ingredients specify what kind of shortening is used? It could be lard.

    4. Re:Can't make money? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Animal Shortening.
      so
      Lard or Suet.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Can't make money? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I just ate a Donut Stick from the Hostess outlet store yesterday, and it did in fact, have beef fat. Don't know about Twinkies.

  51. Bail them out!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too delicious to fail!

  52. Available in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was announced on the CBC News today that "American" twinkies would be shutting down, but that the Canadian supply would be unaffected.

  53. Post-modernism by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1
    Excepting Ho-Ho’s I won’t really miss Hostess products. Most of them tasted like cardboard, with Crisco and sugar in varying amounts. I do think that we’re losing a cultural touchpoint here though, something most people understand and identify with in some way, and to which most people ascribe some value judgment.

    Even my Indian wife who’s never eaten a twinkie knows what “twinkie” implies in terms of inflexible industrial weirdness, post-modern food culture, and unimaginable chemistry and preservatives.

    We’re losing that, and because of the shared loss of context, I grieve.

  54. Well Played by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the firm was managed by hedge funds, 300% increase for execs, borrow as much as possible, break the union, sell the assets.

    Blame the union.

    MAKE MONEY.

    Well played.

  55. FREEDOM! ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dare we dream?

    People in America once dreamed of the liberty to do as they damn well pleased.

    And look what they did with their "freedom".

  56. So close...... by Grayhand · · Score: 1

    If they could have held on until more states legalized pot they could have been bigger than Apple.

  57. Fear Not, Nerds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little Debbie has you covered.

    http://www.littledebbie.com/products/cloudcakes.asp

    Besides, Cloud Cakes is a much more appropriate name for the Slashdot folks, who spend most of their waking hours in the cloud.

  58. After a WHOLE week? by kent.dickey · · Score: 4, Informative

    What company has to close if workers are on strike for a WHOLE WEEK? The company doesn't have to pay hourly workers who don't show up to work...

    This looks to me like a corporate version of "suicide by cop"--run your company into the ground (6 CEOs in 10 years, many executives getting big raises, company owned by hedge funds and venture capitalists, company has big debt), and then keep cutting workers pay until they have to say "enough". And then blame the unions.

    If you're a company, which is failing and cannot be saved, and you have union workers, how else do you expect the company to finally close up shop? This is what it looks like--try to blame the unions.

    The union says they already had half their members laid off, have already cut their pay to below industry average, etc. The union website before the strike started said the following (see http://bctgm.org/PDFs/HostessFactSheet.pdf):

    Hostess is not and will not be viable: If Hostess emerges from bankruptcy under its present plan,
    it will still have too much debt, too high costs and not enough access to cash to stay in business for
    the long term. It will not be able to invest in its plants, in new products and in new technology.

    ---

    I hope someone buys Drake's.

    1. Re:After a WHOLE week? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I always imagined that a hostess plant would have like five people in it, and at least two of them would be there to service machines. How can this not be the case?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:After a WHOLE week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before any other company considers purchasing the trademarks, they should carefully consider how bankruptcy impacts the sale. http://bankruptcy.cooley.com/2012/07/articles/business-bankruptcy-issues/seventh-circuit-bankruptcy-ruling-is-big-win-for-trademark-licensees/
      Also, this whole bankruptcy reminds me of corporate raiders from the 1980s -- finding a fairly strong company, use its good credit to load up on toxic debt, give upper management performance bonuses and perks, and leave the workers high and dry when the money runs out.

    3. Re:After a WHOLE week? by StormyWeather · · Score: 1

      Your not .. well your not too good with logic are you son? The teamsters accountants already debunked your tin foil hat accounting. See above.

  59. Rising Health Care Costs & Consumer Awareness by guttentag · · Score: 0

    Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods...

    Translation: we have finally reached the point where our customers know better than to buy our products, and the health problems caused by our products have pushed our health care costs to unsustainable levels.

    I look forward to the day when the tobacco industry releases a statement like this.

  60. Too late for Harvey Milk by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    If only this had happened 34 years ago...

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  61. Sadness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

  62. Price/Competition by gimmeataco · · Score: 1

    I'm a huge Hostess fan, but their prices were always ridiculous in compares to competitors.

    Hostess creme filled chocolate cupcakes are heaven, but with Little Debbie being 2/3's the price, it's a no brainer.

    1. Re:Price/Competition by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And thus, you underscore the real issue in america.

      You would rather it a poor imitation to save 75 cents,rather then opt for quality.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  63. private sector v. public sector unions. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    The Hostess unions and management went through their negotiations. The workers found the company's terms unacceptable and went on strike. The company couldn't function and decided the best decision was to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets. The union understood that this was a possibility.

    What about when government unions strike? Are we going to close down a school, sell off the assets and return the wealth to the taxpayers? It might not be a bad idea, but I can't see it actually happening. Until that outcome is a genuine risk, government unions have way too much leverage over the taxpayer and shouldn't be allowed to exist.

    1. Re:private sector v. public sector unions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks, mate, I value my rights. Stop wishing you could strip people of their employment rights. And no, I'm not even a public sector employee.

    2. Re:private sector v. public sector unions. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Employment rights. Employment. Rights. Employment, rights.

      Sorry, I can't parse that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  64. No more Wonder bread either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sad for the loss of Twinkies (ate a pack of Zingers today as a tribute), but I'm more upset at the loss of Wonder and Merita bread. My family goes through a SmartWheat and a Cinnamon Raisin loaf a week. We save a small fortune buying it from their local outlet store (last trip netted 8 loaves and a bag of doughnuts for $4.61). I grew up on Merita Old-Fashioned White bread (a 100-year old brand, BTW). Like others have said, I suspect another company will buy the brands and start producing again so maybe my angst will be short lived.

  65. I thought we were DIY here by rasper99 · · Score: 1
  66. One of these things is not like the other by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This wouldn't have happend if the bakers union had conceeded.
    This wouldn't have happend if Hostess had better management.

    It doesn't matter if you have the best management in the world, if your workers all at once decide to shut you down.

    The workers thought management was bluffing but oddly they really did not have large bags of gold they slept on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they had better management, perhaps the workers might actually not want to strike...

      If you hold all variables to be constant but allow one variable to change you can end up with a different result. But that doesn't mean that it was the only variable that can be changed to arive at the desired result.

    2. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't have happend if the bakers union had conceeded.
      This wouldn't have happend if Hostess had better management.

      It doesn't matter if you have the best management in the world, if your workers all at once decide to shut you down.

      The workers thought management was bluffing but oddly they really did not have large bags of gold they slept on.

      The 1960s are over. This wasn't a strike about what flavor ice cream they get on their lunch break. It was about management's "generous" offer to give them an 8% pay cut. Was management taking a pay cut? Not hardly. More like tripling the president's salary with "gifts" to all his buddies.

      Union or no union, it's the same story as everywhere else these days. The people at the top take all the money, the 99% get cuts in pay and benefits and a warning to be grateful. If the company folds, the top guys get prizes and the rest get unemployed.

      If the company can only stay in business by offering Lower Wages Everyday, then management isn't worth their bonuses, their current salaries, their raises, or their "pay to fail". But in the USA, they'll get them anyway. The shareholders get stiffed, the employees get stiffed and geeks and potheads everywhere will go into convulsions. But management is Special, because they're "Job Creators".

    3. Re:One of these things is not like the other by shaper · · Score: 5, Informative

      The workers thought management was bluffing but oddly they really did not have large bags of gold they slept on.

      Some of them did:

      "Within a month of taking over, Rayburn had to preside over a public-relations fiasco. Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer -- as the company was crumbling -- four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%."

      "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"

      Source: http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

      And this was going on last year at the same time that the company was headed into bankruptcy again and management was asking for even more deep concessions from workers. From this and other things I have read, I get the impression that Hostess is a typical large company dealing with typical liability and productivity problems that couldn't manage through it.

    4. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Workers already gave up huge amounts of pay and benefits in the previous two bankruptcies in the last ten years. As a part of those bankruptcies management made promises to invest in infrastructure and improving the business model. That costs money. Management didn't do it. Instead they gave themselves lavish bonuses and tripled the CEO's pay (six CEOs in eight years, none of whom had any baked goods industry experience) while at the same time unilaterally halted contractually obligated payments to the workers' pension fund. Then management demanded a 27-32% pay cut. There would have been "large bags of gold" if management and the venture capitalists hadn't followed the Bain business bust out model: buy a profitable company, steal the pension, zero-fund infrastructure and investment, load management up with people who know nothing about the business except how to shake it down, load the company up with debt, and when you can't fuck the company any harder, fire everybody and sell off the corpse. Bonus: blame the union of the workers you just fucked.

    5. Re:One of these things is not like the other by drakaan · · Score: 2

      If the friggin' teamsters union looked at the books and said "hey guys, this has to happen" (which they did), I seriously doubt that this is as simple as greedy management is sticking up the middle finger to the employees.

      In the present situation, it seems that without concessions from the bakers' union that other unions have already observed to be necessary, there will be no twinkies and 18,000 fewer job pretty soon.

      I get it. The bakers' union is fighting for the rights of their members, and thinks this is a good place to make a stand. If this was Schwebels or Mrs. Baird, the internet wouldn't give a damn.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    6. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Within the past year the CEO's salary more than tripled(from 750k, to over 2.5 million) and other executive got 80+% increases. At the same time, worker pay was being cut 10% and benefits by more. If the executives didn't have large bags of gold to sleep on, it was only by choice.

    7. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess we'll never know, because they certainly do not have the best management in the world.

    8. Re:One of these things is not like the other by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I doubt you could. The problem with hostess is that they needed to downsize and diversify and the employees wouldn't allow that. You can have the best management in the world and get crapped out by a Union hell bent on taking.

    9. Re:One of these things is not like the other by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And if those people worked for free, it would have covered what, 30 yearly salaries of union workers without benefits? Lets pad it a bit and say 60 worker's salaries. 60 out of 18,000- A nice bitching point when your mad, but a pretty pointless point to complain about what someone else is making for a living when the scale is so huge.

    10. Re:One of these things is not like the other by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I know why you posted that as AC. It is because you are too ashamed to take credit for it because it contradicts itself. Two previous bankruptcies in the past ten year and on the third is no where near profitable. Those are your words, I pointed to the problem with them.

    11. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The current owners had the right to pay their executives any amount they wanted to pay them... THEY were the ones who put up all the cash to buy this train-wreck. If the workers had wanted to set the salaries of management then they should have put their money on the line (they could have taken out loans on their homes, tossed-in their savings, cashed-out their insurance plans and their union assets and bought it... that's called "taking a risk" and "investing" and it's what entrepreneurs often do (and part of what drives them to work so hard to succeed and recover their investments)) the union demands had previously driven the original Hostess company into bankruptcy. All the workers should have lost their jobs years ago...

      Some "evil" venture capital guys then bought it (saving most of the jobs of the workers), added-in millions of their own dollars, tried to make it work, and went bankrupt when the unions refused to help make the thing viable. At this point, again, all the workers should have lost their jobs...

      A Second group of "evil" venture capital guys then bought it (again, saving the jobs of all the workers who are there now), added in millions of new investment dollars, tried to make it work, got all the unionized workers (except the bakers) to cooperate in trying to make the thing work. The bakers, however, decided to go on strike; this meant no incoming cash... and the investors were not willing to inject even more if they were gonna lose it all anyway. The new owners told the bakers that if they stayed out on strike, basic economics would kick-in (money going out, none coming in, and no reserves) and the place would close. Like a bunch of flat-earthers, "occupiers" or Trumpka-ites... the bakers decided that the rules of the real world did not apply to them; they stayed on strike.

      The problem is that this particular industry has currently too much capacity (many more companies making high-fat, high-calorie, low-cost sugary baked goods) particularly with the change in consumer habits of the past few years (many more moms are either not packing lunches for their kids, or are tossing-in carrots instead of Twinkies, and more adults are cutting back on their vending machine DingDongs). Just as the UAW wanted to pretend Japanese cars did not exist in the 70's and 80's and kept pushing Detroit for more pay and benefits, the bakers union pretended that Hostess had fewer competitors and consumers were still eating as much cheap fat and sugar... the results are as predictable as gravity if you are not ignoring everything but the rhetoric of your union bosses

    12. Re:One of these things is not like the other by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The workers shut them down exactly because they had really terrible management. They don't kill their own job over nothing. They'd been betrayed, and the company had been looted by hedge funds and executives, who now had the temerity to ask the workers to pay for the executives' greed.

      From what I understand, the company has been in trouble for 10 years. The workers already took a hefty pay cut. That money wasn't used to fix the company, but to give executives big raises (like 70-80%). And now they're asking the workers to take another pay cut so they can loot the company even more? Fuck them.

      What we need is a law that in the case of intentional destructive mismanagement, workers who received a pay cut in the past get first claim to the company's assets. As it is, they get last claim (after banks and shareholders). Give them first claim, and the workers would be able to restart the company without the meddling of hedge funds and executives, and banks would demand that companies are run in a healthy manner, instead of looted like this.

    13. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we need is a law that in the case of intentional destructive mismanagement

      that is great idea on paper, but how would you prove some destructive mismanagement was intentional as opposed to simply mistake in management or simply inability to manage/low IQ of manager, we cant really punish people for making mistakes or for being stupid, otherwise 99+% of Americans should be in prison (everybody with IQ lower than 150)

      , workers who received a pay cut in the past get first claim to the company's assets. As it is, they get last claim (after banks and shareholders). Give them first claim, and the workers would be able to restart the company without the meddling of hedge funds and executives, and banks would demand that companies are run in a healthy manner, instead of looted like this.

      kidding right? actually current order is banks/creditors >> money REALLY OWED to employees ( any paycheck you did not receive or payroll tax/medical payments company did not pay for its workers as oposed to money you think would be fair for you to get >> and last after all that is payed shareholders get usually very small part of money they invested, or simply NOTHING and that is fine they risked by investing and they could earn billions or loose all of it, investment is GAMBLE

      but banks/creditors always should stay first to get money because if that is not case no sane bank or creditor will give you any credit (how do you think that company was able to pay those workers last couple of months without that credit), after all those banks/creditors had company assets for guarantee in their contract and you as employee did not have contract citing company assets as guarantee for payments to you (otherwise you would also be considered creditor)

    14. Re:One of these things is not like the other by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 2

      And if those people worked for free, it would have covered what, 30 yearly salaries of union workers without benefits? Lets pad it a bit and say 60 worker's salaries. 60 out of 18,000- A nice bitching point when your mad, but a pretty pointless point to complain about what someone else is making for a living when the scale is so huge.

      No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.

    15. Re:One of these things is not like the other by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter if you have the best management in the world, if your workers all at once decide to shut you down.

      The workers thought management was bluffing but oddly they really did not have large bags of gold they slept on.

      Note, the following is an assessment without the typical union or management bashing, so people might want to skip it.......

      Background of this story is that Hostess has declared bankruptcy twice in the last ten years.

      Hostess does not supply sales figures - they are privately held - but America's eating habits have changed. White bread consumption is down overall, as in 54 percent of American's ate white bread in 2000, compared to 36 percent last year. Americans also eat a lot more yogurt now - 32 percent of Americans eating yogurt at least once every week versus 18 percent in 2000. That probably has an effect on sales.

      Also, it is important to not that many of their rivals have combined and expanded Bimbo Bakeries, and McKee Foods for instance.

      It is a unionized operation, so pension costs are higher, as is medical costs.

      As an assessment, their higher costs will have a quickening effect to an emergency state when sales go down. If business was to remain good, it would not be an issue. Given the previous bankruptcy and previous concessions by employees, it was apparently a terminal situation. In order to remain feasible, the company needed to expand their product line, away from calorie and sugar laden foods

      But this was a business that was going to go under, regardless. Two bankruptcies in ten years is hard to recover from.

      Interestingly enough, at a breakfast meeting today, everyone said it was a shame and awful that there wasn't going to be any more Twinkies. I asked when the last time anyone there had a Twinkie. Five years was the most recent, and some hadn't had one since grade school. And when I asked the same question about Wonder Bread, many just replied "Eeewwww."

      Union or management, it's not a good business model when people don't want your product.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:One of these things is not like the other by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Well, they strikers really showed management. They've won, and they can all rest easy in victory, now.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    17. Re:One of these things is not like the other by rubikscubejunkie · · Score: 1

      Very true, the unions lost big time on this one.

  67. MOD PARENT DOWN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This usually comes from companies based out of the South where workers are to "know their place" and businesses are to not be questioned.

    Ignorant Yankee.

  68. So what they get now is MUCH better by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    -- An immediate 100% percent wage cut.

                    -- Shifting 500% percent more of health care costs onto the workers (for some workers, this would mean an increased cost of $4000 a month or more for medical insurance).

                    -- Eliminating retiree Medigap insurance, which covers gaps in Medicare.

                    -- Eliminating Pension altogether

                    -- Closing ALL plants.

                    -- Eliminating the eight-hour day, which would mean no time-and-a-half pay after eight hours per day.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      Not true, they will receive wages under unemployment insurance and have the time to look for a better job, possibly they will qualify for retraining expenses. In Indiana you can't put your kids on the state's health plan for kids if you get a massive pay cut, because they had and still qualify for existing coverage. However, if you get canned because your company closes your kids will qualify. You might qualify for some health program for adults in some states.

      It's not like the union was unwilling to compromise, but this may be a better outcome then being stuck at a slowly failing company.

    2. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, whoever buys the Hostess factories and brands is probably going to need workers to run them. I wonder if a cohort of people with past experience in those plants wouldn't have an advantage when it comes to interview time...

    3. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by Wolfrider · · Score: 2

      Dude, get a grip. Would you hire back the same stubborn idiots that let the previous incarnation of the company FAIL in the 1st place?? Who's to say they wouldn't do the same to you?

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    4. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by publiclurker · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you have to just say no when you are being screwed over too much. too bad your parents didn't say no to yuo once in awhile. Maybe you wouldn't be such a self-centered idiot who thinks the entire world exists to do your work

    5. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that if you get laid off after taking a wage cut, your unemployment benefits are based on the lower amount.

    6. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by Hatta · · Score: 2

      You're talking about management here, right? They're the ones who let things get so bad a strike would sink the company.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by DMiax · · Score: 1

      By that logic they should always accept every offer, because it is better than nothing. You have to set hard limits on the cuts you are willing to accept, for example at the point where you cannot anymore afford food and rent with your salary.

    8. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would, off-course unionising would be prohibited, and since it is job with very low IQ requirements it would be minimum state mandated wage (something like five times lower salary than their current, some are earning 100K/year) and if i cant find workers in US to work under those conditions dismantle all machines i bought and move them to China and earn even more, that is capitalism for you :)

    9. Re:So what they get now is MUCH better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it even legal to prohibit joining a union? Refusing to accept a closed shop is of course legitimate, and even refusing to deal with the union as a collective negotiator, but is there any legal basis to prevent a group of potential employees meeting up outside and all agreeing on what wages and conditions they will accept, and putting up money to get a lawyer to help them with their contracts?

  69. I followed your advice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I followed your advice...

    Anyone saying the Unions did this is buying the PR line and not looking at FCC filings for the last 3 chapter 11s they issued.

    Exactly which part of the spectrum was Hostess licensining for twinkies again? I was unable to find it...

    In an unrelated matter, Hostess Brands, Inc. doesn't have a stock ticker, since they are not a publicly held company, so there are no 10-Q or other filings to look at.

  70. Margin compression in a weak market by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Commodity prices are on the rise. In a weak market with cash-strapped consumers, producers have little flexibility to pass price increases onto their customers. That means shrinking margins, and if the margins get too slim, it means cutting costs.

    What did Hostess really have besides some brand recognition to differentiate itself from the dozens of other junk food producers? Seems like unions and management were fighting over their share of a shrinking Twinkie.

  71. Unions Suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no mystery about what the union was thinking. They want to send a message to the rest of the baking industry -- meet our demands or we can and will put you out of business.

    The union happily sacrificed 18,000 jobs. They really don't care about their workers. Losing the dues sucks, but the only thing that is really important is union power. Since union power was the only thing preserved in this debacle, that's the only possible reason for their actions.

    All those posters saying that this had to do with changing eating habits are ignoring the fact that the trademarks will be purchased by a non-union baker who will continue to sell Twinkies. Twinkies aren't going away.

    Or, if that is all too much to follow just look at it this way. The union has just outsourced 18,000 jobs to Mexico.

  72. Atlas Shrugged by MrSoccerMom · · Score: 1

    Who is John Galt?

    1. Re:Atlas Shrugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly not the executives who bought Hostess in order to have a financial honeypot.

      They don't make, they don't build, they just own and sell.

  73. would rather see the company closed by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    And that there is the core of problem.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:would rather see the company closed by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What problem? people are suppose to work at a company they can't afford to work for?
      Or the problem that the CEO was given a massive raise and expects there employees to suck it up?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:would rather see the company closed by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      If you cant "afford to work for a company" after honest negotiations, sure you leave, but you dont actively try to destroy them on your way out the door and ruin others lives in the process.

      Gotta love class warfare and total incompetence in the general public. Idiot.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  74. Imported Twinkies... by Ron+Harwood · · Score: 1

    Apparently Hostess brands in Canada are unaffected - you'll be able to import twinkies... ;)

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/snack-giant-hostess-shuttering-us-business-but-canada-unaffected/article5365001/

    1. Re:Imported Twinkies... by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Saputo doesn't (currently) make Twinkies.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  75. Re:Do you think I'll die any day now? by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In one fell swoop you've shown how ignorant Americans can be. Good show old chap, good show.

  76. Ho Hos by Bimbo's? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    srsly?

  77. then what did mangement do... by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    with the 80% raise that they gave themselves recently?

    1. Re:then what did mangement do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same thing the union bosses did: bought themselves a phat boat/plane/beach house.

    2. Re:then what did mangement do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invested in Entiments.

    3. Re:then what did mangement do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They invested in *Entenmann's*...

    4. Re:then what did mangement do... by Meski · · Score: 1

      A retraining course, hopefully.

  78. Most of the people are not aware of the true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They jsut spout their "union=bad" non sense.

    Firstly the owner simply bled hostress dry using the same hedge venture capitalism tactic, sadly the main company with debt and use off shoot or diverse tactic to skim it. Secondely, their legal action cost (14 million) are about the same as the pay cut they requested. You read that right. So the money was there to vie for legal action, but not for the employee. Furthermore the judge also remakred there were some strange point, and I am pretty sure he will rise an eyebrow at declaring bankruptcy so quick. There are other point but those person screaming "union killed hostess" have no FUCKING clue on the true story. They jsut react like apvlov dogs reading a story where union is involved and poof they jump on the union=bad bandwagon.

  79. Re:Do you think I'll die any day now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But stereotyping is cool *if you are not an American*. Got it.

  80. Good summary from zerohedge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...here.

    Bottom line: wrong business, wrong capital structure, wrong unions, wrong economy, wrong government.

    No management could have kept this thing solvent.

    The US quite desperately needs to repeal the Ethanol mandate and bio-fuel tax incentives and get food price inflation under control.
    Screw the Iowa caucus.

  81. Good riddance by macraig · · Score: 1

    I haven't eaten anything branded Hostess in 19 years, and the last time 19 years ago was an isolated atypical incident. The world can do without one corporation that concentrates wealth and makes its customers directly unhealthier while doing it.

  82. Now my Twinkies Cookbook is going to be useless... :(

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  83. perfect example of let it die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so we can all go into our own twinkie businesses

  84. Do the workers by publiclurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    get their friends to set their salaries like the CEO does? If not, then the hypocrisy is on your side.

    1. Re:Do the workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get their friends to set their salaries like the CEO does? If not, then the hypocrisy is on your side.

      Err, do you really think union tactics for getting what they want are any more noble?

    2. Re:Do the workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the workers get their friends to set their salaries like the CEO does? If not, then the hypocrisy is on your side.

      This is pure drivel that often gets modded up by the Slashdot community. It needs to stop. The CEO's compensation is in large part set by the company's board of directors.

      For a large company, a proper board of directors should include at least 1 or 2 other CEOs, 1 nonprofit organization head and 1 person from academia (usually a university president). It should at most include 1 or 2 insiders from the current company (the CEO, the chairperson, and thats it). If the board of directors is not diversified enough to call shenanigans during negotiating of CEO salary, then the board of directors needs to be fired and replaced with new bodies by the shareholders. Also, a good board of directors institute well thought out clawback policies and tell potential candidates to ___ off if they want a golden parachute with no strings attached.

      Don't get me wrong, its definitely possible to stack the board in favor of unreasonable CEO compensation. However, the fault in that lies in the shareholders, not the CEO. Hint: See how many new directors HP has within the past year. Not a coincidence.

    3. Re:Do the workers by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kinda the point of a union?

  85. You can't get rid of Twinkies that easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt they'll end up selling the assets to some other company (Bimbo was mentioned above) and the products will still end up on store shelves.

    Plus, it's not like there aren't dozens of knock-off brands that are just as bad or even worse.

  86. Re:Do you think I'll die any day now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly did GP say that "[showed his ignorance]" to you?

  87. Hurray for unions by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I hope the union learned a valuable lesson from this but I bet they didn't. All those anti-big business morons who think they're entitled to 1 and only 1 job in their lifetime with amazing pay regardless of skill or performance better wake the hell up. Big, evil bosses can work people for 16 hours at crap pay but unions can hold a whole company ransom and then drive it straight into the ground. Power is power and it can be evil on either side of the coin. So if people ask if I'm anti-union or anti-corporations, I just say I'm actually anti-asshole on both counts.

    1. Re:Hurray for unions by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not the unions.

      The union didn't stop people from eating Twinkies.
      Hostess couldn't make what the employees needed, so the employees went on strike.

      Management sat on doing the same thing instead of changing.
      They where aggressive the the Chinese market. Yo know, the market that's starting to love everything American?
      The weren't aggressive in re-branding to meet with the times.

      They only wanted the Union back so the could sell a 'working' pant. After which they employees would have be fired anyways.
      Not going back to a job you can't afford to be at isn't a crime.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Hurray for unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have an intelligent set of ideas behind awful spelling and grammar. Usually, it's possible to get the basic idea anyway, but I'm having trouble with your post. It lacks any references and the likelihood of sarcasm makes it difficult to replace the bad parts with something that makes sense to understand what you intended to convey.

      I do hope they get their pants working again though.

  88. Poor CEO by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    how will he ever make do with the multi-million dollar raise he gave himself.

  89. No surprise at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hostess had been based in Kansas City from 1930 to 2004. It went bankrupt in 2004 and re-emerged under a slightly different name, and moved to Texas. In January of this year, it filed for bankruptcy again. That there happens to be a strike going on just added to the companies problems, but they have been in a downward spiral for some time. I haven't eaten a Twinkie(tm) in years. I stay away from Wonder Bread(tm). There was a time when people would eat this stuff, and it was a treat that they would work off pulling a plow or working at the slaughterhouse. With a more sedentary lifestyle, this stuff clogs your heart and it stays clogged. People stop buying in order to stop dying. As a result the company has less business. Surprise!

  90. Are you actually dense enough to believe that. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    the company's been in bankruptcy twice so far. the only people making any money are the executives that are bleeding the company dry. Then again, you actually are sense enough to believe this even when you aren't corporate whoring.

    1. Re:Are you actually dense enough to believe that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " the only people making any money are the executives" and the dude making $108k a year as a garlic butter mixer. Union wages killed Hostess.

    2. Re:Are you actually dense enough to believe that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, total pay for all exec was probably less than 1% of total for workers and definitely less than 10% so in the end its not really significant part of expenses

  91. so in other words by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    why make the effort to even appear to care when you can just screw over everyone for your own personal benefit. And you appear to actually be morally bankrupt to think that is a good thing.

  92. Healthy? by nilbog · · Score: 1

    So the answer to "people are more aware of what is healthy" is to close up shop rather than making something healthy?

    --
    or else!
  93. Bad timing by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Marijuana is becoming more legal in more places and NOW the go out og business.

    Man, bad timing.

    really they suffer a branding issue.
    They weren't aggressive against dispelling the myths, and they need to jump on the retro bandwagon and use 1950 post war packaging

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  94. Re:Squeezing the supply by Technician · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hostess has recently had some of the highest priced snack cakes in the supermarket. Their sales have fallen off. There is competition in the free market. The union wanted a bigger slice of pie from a smaller pie. The company knew it couldn't survive a labor strike. The union was not recognizing the situation. The company cut the losses instead of bleeding to death and is putting the assets on the market.

    Fast forward to the new soak the rich plan Obama has for what 1.6 Trillion Dollars? The pie they plan on bleeding will rapidly vanish. The high income folks will no longer make high income here with the high overhead. Businesses will shutter and the capitol will rapidly move to more friendly to business markets.

    http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/share-this-massive-list-of-post-election-firings-and-layoffs-with-everyone-you-can

    Is your employeer leaving town? Why would they stay. Those dependant on the government will stay and sign up for all the bailouts and handouts they can get. Those stuck with the skyrocketing bill will move assets elsewhere.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  95. Re:Rising Health Care Costs & Consumer Awarene by geekoid · · Score: 1

    If hostess was addictive, they wouldn't have a problem.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  96. cholesterol free by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Hostess snacks are not made with animal fats, but hydrogenated vegetable oils. They are therefore cholesterol free. It's you crazy people on low-carb diets that have the cholesterol problems. Us twinkie fans just have obesity induced diabetes.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  97. Workers United by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Workers are begining to again fight back against unfair labor practices. For too long workers have been apathetic and instead of demanding resonable wages have had fallen for the ruse of debt as a way to subsidies thier income. Well no more! We need to stand together and demand our rights, demand to be heard. The gap between CEO pay and that of the average worker has grown exponentially over the last few decades. Worker pay has failed to keep up with inflation for even longer than that. How many other companies will have to face a similar fate. How many other companies will refuse to respect worker rights. Now is the time for all workers to stand together united and let our voices be heard. The christmas season is the perfect time for each of us to refuse to support such corporations. How will this nation change if the stores are empty on black friday and instead we are spending time with our loved-ones.

  98. Blue Man Group by antdude · · Score: 1

    What will they do without Twinkies? :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  99. Management Greed by batray · · Score: 1

    As part of a recent bankruptcy settlement the unions agreed to wage and benefit cuts. Once out of bankruptcy, the management proceeded to pay themselves huge bonuses instead of reinvesting in the company.

  100. What the fuck is next air and water disappear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this fucking shit can happen to twinkles, it can happen to any fucking thing. Hostess Twinkies, holy fucking shit, this calls everything into question. What the fuck can't disappear? Air gone next? Water disappears? Fuck a duck, this shit is disconcerting.

    In the past, there were always Twinkies in the future. Now... what the fuck.

  101. May not be gone for long, though. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Here's the thing: the products produced by Hostess--especially Twinkies, Ding-Dongs, Ho-Hos, etc.--still have very strong product recognition. As such, the bakeries where these products are made could be snapped up VERY fast by a number of bidders.

    Hillshire Brands, the former Sara Lee minus the beverage operation, may make a bid for the Wonder Bread operation. And there maybe others bidding for other parts of Hostess' operation. However, don't expect Bimbo Bakeries USA, the US division of Mexico's gigantic Grupo Bimbo, to make any bids--Bimbo Bakeries USA is already hugely dominant in the US market with a large number products well-known in US supermarkets and any attempt to take any part of Hostess' property may be considered anti-competitive by the FTC and/or Justice Department Antitrust Division.

  102. Re:Squeezing the supply by headonfire · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard, it's less "larger slice of a smaller pie" and more that they didn't want 8% pay cuts and 20% health care cost increases while executive compensation skyrocketed, in a company with a recent history of contract violations, multiple bankruptcies and chain of six incompetent, looting CEOs in under a decade.

    It seems to me that once the workers got fed up with the perpetual mismanagement and looting of a company being dragged down and called a strike, the executives saw the perfect opportunity to cash in one last time and blame the unions for it.

  103. I hope not. There's a limited supply of non-idiots by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    Same here. I really didn't like the damned things. Too much sugar and not much else. At least tastykakes have some flavor.

  104. To all worried people about twinkies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one post earlier said, even if Hostess closes for good, Twinkies are manufactured by Bimbo Bakery in Mexico and LatinAmerica (ane believe me, *MOUNTAINS* of Twinkies) so don't worry they will not become gold-like currency in your Post-Apocalypse wet dream.

    Bimbo just will try to buy the name in USA and/or import them to USA. PROFIT and goodbye unions! And yes they brought Sara Lee and another American bakeries under your nose some years ago. Well you does the same with us down here in Mexico, so sometime is nice to see that someone comes up there and eat your market for a change. ;)

  105. People sure hate the truth. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    While it takes the whole company out, they didn't do it on strict financial grounds. See American Airlines for a case of strategic bankruptcy, albeit on slightly better financial grounds.

    I provided solutions, modbombers register only their hate of them. In fact, I even recognize that there is a problem on the employer end where it solves a major problem with Right to Work - that it does nothing against employers that form unions.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  106. Twinkie Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A side story on Twinkies is the trial of Dan White, where he used Twinkies as a defense. From Wikipedia:
    "Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from healthy food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter."

    For years angry San Franciscans would spray paint the word "Defense" below the Twinkies sign, only to have it removed shortly afterwards.

  107. so the answer is no by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    but you lack the moral backbone to admit it.

  108. do you actually believe the BS your's spewing... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    or do you just whore this BS knowing that nobody is ignorant enough to believe you.

  109. wanted capitalism? got it. BTW replys do you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much the CEO of Goodwill makes?

  110. and of course, you know that's bullshit by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    since the company is filing for bankruptcy. Of course, we already know that even you consider your attempted explanation to a a bunch of impotent distraction. That's why you tried to bring in a minority to scapegoat.

  111. American Cruise Ships by huckamania · · Score: 2

    Ask yourself why there are no American cruise lines and then go look up the real cause. Unions are a 20th century artifact and no longer serve any purpose except to milk the remaining drops out of a dying cow. Every unionized industry not dependent on public support is either disappearing or already dead. Argue all you want about the noble cause of unions, but this story and a thousand others illustrate the opposite.

    It is going to be a long 4 years for a lot of people, not all of whom really deserve it.

    1. Re:American Cruise Ships by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should ask yourself if you'd be happy for your children or friends to work in the conditions that modern day cruise ship employees endure?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  112. Union BS by huckamania · · Score: 2

    Non-governmental unions are weaker because the industries that they took over no longer exist or are a shadow of what they used to be. The cruise ship industry was mandated by a Democratic congress to be unionized and disappeared virtually overnight. Sure, there are still Americans working cruise liners, but they are all foreign owned.

    My Grandfather worked his way into management of a steel mill. He used to tell me stories of unionized mobs lynching scabs and harrasing the families of management. It is no wonder that so many unions were infiltrated by organized crime, they weren't that much different to begin with. The steel industry survives, but mostly in the non-unionized south.

    1. Re:Union BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Non-governmental unions are weaker because the industries that they took over no longer exist or are a shadow of what they used to be. The cruise ship industry was mandated by a Democratic congress to be unionized and disappeared virtually overnight. Sure, there are still Americans working cruise liners, but they are all foreign owned.

      My Grandfather worked his way into management of a steel mill. He used to tell me stories of unionized mobs lynching scabs and harrasing the families of management. It is no wonder that so many unions were infiltrated by organized crime, they weren't that much different to begin with. The steel industry survives, but mostly in the non-unionized south.

      Did your Grandfather tell you stories of management hiring Pinkertons to assassinate union leaders, company towns designed to keep workers in debt to the company and at their mercy, or how they felt it was their right to treat workers like slaves? Did he explain the logic of screaming Socialism when workers want to unionize while they move manufacturing to a Communist country so they can save a few bucks?

  113. THANKS unions & CEO by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Unions for being greedy in a depressed economy "Suits" for being greedy in a depressed economy The only one who benefits will be Michele Obama, who doesn't want anyone eating twinkies in the first place LOL.

  114. Your an idiot by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    A CEO who destroys his company gets a HUGE compensation package by taking the golden parachute he setup and getting out before the company collapses. It has been done time and time again. Really kid, READ something. ANYTHING. Get a chewable book and improve your mind.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  115. That's called running out of money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earlier concessions proved to be insufficient to make the company profitable in the current economic climate... so yeah it ran out of money and went bankrupt. That's not because some evil investors hated Twinkies, or hated the workers and lied to them. Hostess (ver 2.0) did not lie to the workers (although I'm sure the union bosses told the workers that... probably the same bosses who refuse to make large enough concessions in the first place) it simply failed and went bankrupt.

    It's incredibly bizarre that so many on Slashdot (where it's a constant theme that right-wingers are anti-science, and left-wingers are well-anchored to reality) are so un-tethered to reality; the laws of economics are as inflexible as the laws of physics:

    If you pay out more than you take in, you go bankrupt. Period. A temporary inrush of new investor cash can buy time... but unless it's an on-going government subsidy, then it is only a temporary reprieve... and it is contingent on some later additional outflow (to repay the new investors)

  116. First the cockroaches... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

    First the cockroaches, now the Twinkies. Is there ANYTHING that will survive our inevitable nuclear annihilation?!?

  117. The reason to strike beyond the republican lies by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    As you say, the management has been stealing everything that isn't nailed down, while the workers have had to agree to multiple cuts.

    The reason to say NO and risk your job is because it isn't ONE pay cut, it is pay cut after pay cut. While the CEO's get raise after raise. A 20% paycut is HUGE for most people who already need to spend their entire paycheck. You are going to say to your kid, sorry, you got to come back home and stop university and get a job because the management considers their own raises more important then the future of the company?

    And the next pay cut and the next? Because Hostess makes fucking awful products. As a European I took the oppotunity to buy some on a trip to see what this fabled snack was like. Twinkie, seen in so many movies.

    IT IS GODDAMN AWFUL.

    Europe sure has its share of cheap crap snacks that taste like a chemical experiment gone wrong but they are cheap. Twinkies ain't cheap.

    I am not just talking elitist taste, I took some back and bought some "Euro shopper" (Dutch cheap brand in largest super market chain AH) cake snacks to compare. The filling might be the same as in negerzoenen (negrokisses) but isn't and the cake is just bad. Really cheap cake (1 euro for a full sized cake (length and width of a load of bread but not the height) tastes a million times better.

    I have no idea about the other products, oddly enough, couldn't find them.I got the idea that while Americans know what they are they have gone from their mind. To me they seemed as something special because for decades I heard of them but never could get any but to Americans it just a not so good snack that is expensive and bad for you.

    And so the company dies. And then the class war America is having breaks out, US Unions are unlike anywhere else... well unlike in Europe. The hostility seems insane. In Holland, the Big 11 (biggest employers) wanted the strong unions of a decade ago back because it gave them someone to deal with. The Polder Model is missed by both sides (except government, it was them that sabotaged it because they wanted to set the wages, rather then employees and employers agreeing to higher wages (really, in several sectors agreements were reached and then government insisted on wage freezes)).

    I get the feeling that in the US because compromise is unheard of, the battle lines get so hardened neither backs down because both are totally convinced they are right. When you see Romney speaking when he doesn't know the world is listening, you can see half of it. But the unions too seem totally alien from a EU perspective.

    Let them eat cake vs chopping the heads of everyone who isn't you. Two sides who can't compromise.

    Sad.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  118. Indeed because wage cuts stand on their own. by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    So, I can cut of your finger because if you don't let me, I will cut of your head.

    Because of course, it ends there.

    Oh no, now I want to cut of your hand, or I will cut of your head.

    Now a leg, or I will cut of your head.

    Now I cut of your torso. But hey, it is still better then having your head cut off.

    Also, I wonder if you republicans heard of inflation? If you take a 8% cut and inflation is 3% then you really take a 11% cut because in NORMAL economies, salaries rise to compensate for inflation.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  119. Same thing happened in Canada by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

    GM Diesel spun of its locomotive division to Electromotive. Electromotive was bought by Caterpillar. Caterpillar said that they were paying too much in union labour costs. The labour contract was up December 31 2011. Caterpillar locked out the union January 1 2012 and said they could keep their jobs if they took a 33% wage cut. The union said go to hell. Shortly after Caterpillar purchased Electromotive, they spun up a factory in Muncie Ind., with hungry workers willing to work for minimum wage. Caterpillar closed the plant and shifted the jobs south. The union fucked 400 workers so that it could play hardball with the big 3 auto makers in Canada and "win" higher wage jobs for auto workers. Good work CAW.

    --
    "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
  120. That was Caterpillar's doing, *not* CAW. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    If anything, it should reflect on the need for stronger laws to protect unions from those kind of maneuvers. In addition, it means that Right to Work should also apply to employers as well.

    hungry workers willing to work for minimum wage

    That can be read more accurately as desperate workers contracted out by firms such as Strom Engineering that would rather not be involved in disputes. They use them as leverage much like a Right to Work state uses its false claim of "freedom" to mess with workers.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:That was Caterpillar's doing, *not* CAW. by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

      Umm, how are laws, in either Canada or the US going to stop a multinational from pulling jobs out of either country and shipping them elsewhere, such as Mexico or China.

      We certainly can't ban Caterpillar from shipping their machines into Canada in "retaliation" for closing a factory, the NAFTA would pose severe sanctions on Canada for that kind of behavior.

      Its simply boils down to this: if your company's stance (caterpillar) is not to deal with unions, and you buy a company that is already unionized, workers at the acquired company should expect that it will be shut, and a new factory will be built in a state that is pro right to work, and anti union.
      Caterpillar has done this time after time after time. If you want I'll give LOTS of citations.

      --
      "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
  121. Re:Do you think I'll die any day now? by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming your comment is about Great Britain - the world's capital of crooked teeth and non-american obesity.

    It is amusing that for most Americans Britain==Europe while most Europeans see it as the 51st state.

  122. Re:Squeezing the supply by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.

  123. Benzene by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    New York City writer Steve Ettlinger, in his book, “Twinkie, Deconstructed,” says that flammable and carcinogenic benzene, plays a major role in the extremely complicated set of chemical reactions that yield the artificial flavouring vanillin. And the chlorine used to bleach the flour in Twinkies is extremely toxic.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  124. The villains have won. =( by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Across every world, across every multiverse, the Heroes one, true, effective weapon is gone. The villains are unstoppable. They have won. The end is nigh, and we are all doomed.

  125. No problem. Lifetime Supply of Twinkies by amunds0n · · Score: 0

    Stock up now. Shelf life is 40 years.

  126. Thanks Unions! by whipnet · · Score: 1

    Hooray for the working man!!!

  127. Way to go Unions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another reason why Unions should be stopped.

  128. Junk Food Succumbs To New Health Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time for gooey, puffy refined sugar to succumb to the New Age of food. In other words, why were they in financial doo-doo in the first place? Because their products are crap and consumers are waking up to that fact. Plus, their High Fructose Corn Syrup laden snakes contribute to the rising cost of health care, because they induce so much disease (diabetes, compromised immune system, general malnutrition, weight gain, etc.)

    The workers affected by this need to go find jobs in the health food industry, or, what the heck, perhaps even create such jobs by starting their own healthy food enterprise.

  129. Imported Twinkies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexican Twinkies taste pretty much the same. The only problem here is for the workers that will be laid off.

  130. A small fraction by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You know, whoever buys the Hostess factories and brands is probably going to need workers to run them.

    Whoever buys the recipes probably already has plants and workers.

    They may hire a few more, but probably just in a few areas... hostess had something like 30 plants all over the place. With manufacturing suffering it's going to be rough for all of them to find a job.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  131. See Victory, Pyrrhic by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    No, it's not just the gross numbers and how much the raises would cost the company in dollars, but also in morale. Do you think the workers morale and trust in the company improved when they found out high level executives were getting raises while their pay was being cut? Even if they have minimal fiscal impact, they have symbolic impact that affects the outcome of worker actions.

    And how is their morale and trust doing today, particularly with their union? I wonder how this would have gone down if the Bakers Union members had been allowed a secret vote instead of their leadership simply folding their arms and refusing to deal.

    1. Re:See Victory, Pyrrhic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how often you see companies declare bankruptcy to wipe out their obligations to their employees, then miraculously carry on afterwards, it is hardly surprising that the workers didn't accept a pay cut, since if the company really as that badly off the senior management obviously wasn't earning that level of pay.

      Also, some of the other posters have suggested that if they had voluntarily agreed to pay cuts and loss of benefits they would have been less well-supported by state programmes.

      There was also a comment from the union that, for those whose unemployment insurance was based on their last hourly pay, they were better off having the company go bust now than to accept lower pay, then lose their jobs anyway, and that if the company were telling the truth then the deal offered wouldn't do any good.

    2. Re:See Victory, Pyrrhic by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      You mean how new owners buy up the assets and company name in bankruptcy court and put the assets and company name back to use? Yea I can see how it might "appear" how the company carry's on after it goes bust in the same way I could carry on after my death by giving one of my offspring my exact name.

  132. Management did take a pay cut by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Was management taking a pay cut? Not hardly.

    Management received a raise before, yes. But this year the top level executives were given a salary of $1/year to help prop up the company.

    And it's not like that mattered since the total amount of those salaries pays for perhaps .01% of the total workforce.

    So much for your theory...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  133. Re:Squeezing the supply by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Yeah, blame it on the union, when in reality it was the executives who looted the company to death and asked the workers to foot the bill. It was intentional mismanagement, and the executives belong in prison.

    So:

    1. Buy company.

    2. Run it into the ground

    3. ???

    4. Profit!

    Interesting business plan.

  134. That's right, American workers... by jep305 · · Score: 1

    ... go ahead and price yourselves out of yet another industry. Then bitch when six months from now your kids are eating Chinese-made Twinkies.

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  135. Tell him about the twinkie... by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

    No more twinkies!! But... what will we compare the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area to??

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
  136. This is just a smokescreen by skipdallas · · Score: 1

    Sure, they will go into bankruptcy, and come out of it under a new corporate name. Then start right back up without ANY union contracts to deal with.

  137. Twinkles are disgusting. by davesag · · Score: 1

    I feel for those 18,000+ workers but the fact is that Twinkies are disgusting and ought not be consumed by anyone ever.

    Another purveyor of shit food goes under. That's a victory for common sense.

    There is a long list of such companies that need to follow in Hostess' footsteps. Coke and Pepsie. Macdonalds et al, they are all a blight on the general public.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  138. Got what they wanted by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    It appears the bakers got what they wanted...Nothing and no jobs.

  139. Re:Squeezing the supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Buy company.
    2. Squeeze money out of it into other companies you own
    3. Give a load of money to some of your mates to do that for you
    4. IF company is still alive, GOTO 2
    5. Declare bankrutpcy, void all the company's debts
    6. Claim the capital losses as a write-off for tax
    7. Profit!!!
  140. Re:Squeezing the supply by mcvos · · Score: 1

    Step 3 is "Get as much money out of the company as you can, and saddle it with debt". That's how Romney did it, and it looks like these people did pretty much the same thing. Bonus points for making the company loan the money with which you buy it.

  141. Re:Squeezing the supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, how does utter bullshit like this get modded up on slashdot? This site has really hit rock bottom. Glad I stopped posting under my account when the sock puppets hijacked the moderation system. I think this is the last I even need to be reading this obviously broken site.

  142. easy fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mitt Romney will save them

  143. OH! by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    The Huge Manatee!

  144. Re:Squeezing the supply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has nothing to do with government dependency, free market, or any Faux News Psuedo Randian fantasy world. The people who run the company are corrupt, they're incompetent and milking it for all they can before shutting it down. They've given themselves massive raises they haven't earned, they've mismanaged a snack food icon, and they've plundered/mismanaged the employee pension fund.

    Take your "it's your government dependency" bullshit and shove it up your ass. If every plundering slimebag corporate executive that's crushed American workers futures were hanged tomorrow, I'd say good fucking riddance.

  145. chasing the jobs away by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    And now, it looks like the jobs are moving out of the country.

    That turned out really well.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  146. Missed it again by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    LOL. You MUST be an accountant.

    Being a CEO requires leadership not prayer. Continual "cost cutting" on the bottom line without raising the top line will never save a failing business model. Taking away your employees' living wages, while helping yourself to seconds won't either. Hostess found this out the hard way. They also discovered that they actually *GASP* needed those employees to run their business.

    Instead of working with employees from the beginning to save a failing concern drowning in debt and losing mindshare, those in the corner offices helped themselves to a bigger piece of the shrinking pie while asking others to do more with less. Like it or not, their "people" decided they would rather be unemployed than work under the conditions dictated by management. That says a lot about the leadership qualities of management. If you fail to see this obvious evidence, you probably aren't cut out for leadership or management either. Your self interested "cut-and-run" ideology corroborates it.

    And the captain doesn't always have to go down with the ship when you hire someone other than Joe Hazelwood to pilot her through the Sound.

    1. Re:Missed it again by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      LOL. You MUST be an accountant.

      Because I can see that 2 + 2 doesn't make over $9000?

      Taking away your employees' living wages, while helping yourself to seconds won't either.

      Right, taking away a few small dollars from everyone will do tons of damage. Clearly the employees faced huge hardships with the $10 they weren't getting from every paycheck so their CEO could have a $4.5 million salary.

      Instead of working with employees from the beginning to save a failing concern drowning in debt and losing mindshare, those in the corner offices helped themselves to a bigger piece of the shrinking pie while asking others to do more with less.

      The cuts that unions agree to in these situations amount to thousands per employee in healthcare and wages. Think dropping $400/mo in healthcare (i.e. higher deductibles on your insurance = lower premiums, 75%-90% of which is usually paid by the employer) and $500/mo in wages, that's $118 million the company saves in an effort to keep itself afloat. By contrast, they could fire about 2000 employees and make everyone else work harder if the total compensation of each employee rounds out to about $60,000 including the wage taxes, social security (6.5% employer has to pay), wages, and benefits.

      And again, sometimes the ship is just going to sink, at which point the best option is really to just cut and run. Which the CEO seems to have done here. Your entire argument is "the CEO made out good and he should have gotten screwed just like everyone else, even though that wouldn't have really helped the situation any or kept anyone their jobs or made them any richer except for like 10 dollars they'd have that they don't now... I like 10 dollars."

  147. Last Reply by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    LOL. You MUST be an accountant.

    Because I can see that 2 + 2 doesn't make over $9000?

    LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation. Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO. The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.

    Try to wrap your mind around this: The goal of both management and labor is to make more money. For labor, they want more money for their effort and management wants more revenue and profit. Their goals are aligned. By failing to work together to achieve their goals and creating a bitter adversarial environment, they both failed. The leaders bear the responsibility for cultivating a positive working environment and making decisions conducive to cooperation. With Hostess management's missteps and self indulgent attitude (like yours), nobody can be surprised at the resulting animosity from labor.

    Feel free to rant and rave some more about numbers you pull out of your ass, but I am done with this thread.

    1. Re:Last Reply by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      LOL. No. Because you STILL don't get it. You are either totally clueless to what I am saying or you are willfully ignorant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a policy decision and a financial one. EVERYTHING is financial to you. You have an accountant's attitude complemented with a self serving, narrow minded disposition. You keep ranting and raving about the (totally self fabricated) numbers but you do not understand that I never disputed the cold, hard, financial situation.

      This very article claims Hostess will leave 18,500 employees unemployed BY CEASING ALL BUSINESS OPERATIONS. Wikipedia gives the following pieces of information:

      In March 2012, Brian Driscoll resigned from his position as CEO.[16] Gregory F. Rayburn, who had been hired and named Chief Restructuring Officer only nine days earlier, assumed the leadership position. Fortune reported that unions within the organization had been unhappy with Driscoll's proposed compensation package of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and a $1.95 million "long term compensation" package. Additionally, the court had discovered that Hostess executives had received raises of up to 80% the year prior. In an effort to restore relations, Rayburn cut the salaries of the four top Hostess executives to $1, to be restored by January 1 (or earlier) of the following year.

      That's $3.5 million, although it was cut for no real reason except as an act of good faith--like cutting your arm to show you have red blood, it doesn't benefit anyone but it hurts you but people like to see they have power over you and so the infliction of injury is good policy, even if the cold fiscal facts of it are that it's stupid and pointless. Additionally, the 300% number you pulled seems to be a bit bigger than 80%.

      Your arguments implicitly dispute the cold, hard financial situation; or you put more stock into sticking it to the man than doing anything useful. What exactly is the use of the policy of reducing executive salaries in the case of Hostess?

      Your eagerness to protect the CEO and other management staff that "made out good"(sic) and your suggestion that he would be better off to "cut-and-run" demonstrates that your priority would not be to work with employees to return the company to profitability, which is the ultimate responsibility of the CEO.

      No, the ultimate responsibility of the CEO is to the shareholders. If the company is unsalvagable, they will often hire a CEO specifically experienced in dropping a company. That's why there are top-dollar CEOs that keep getting hired into businesses that look iffy--BIG businesses--and then 6 months later the business is filing for bankruptcy while the CEO is getting a pat on the back and a golden parachute. That was the deal: make this thing come down without everyone involved losing their ass.

      Obviously the CEOs didn't feel their salaries would make the damnedest dent in returning the company to profitability; they lowered them as a negotiation bargaining chip--and they're a year ahead on 80% additional savings, though I'm hesitant to give executives (or anyone) that much foresight that they'd plan to pad their savings just so they can drop their salary as a good-faith negotiation tactic--but that's about it. They argued for reductions in healthcare coverage, pensions, and union salaries that would dwarf their executive salaries--this is both everyone's ultimatum that the company is falling apart AND a strong effort to reorganize. Too bad the Hostess brand is still all about things that people don't want today.

      The primary obligated job of the management team is to increase shareholder wealth, not personal wealth. Failing to understand this fundamental fact is why you would not make a good CEO or perhaps even a leader.

      The CEO is a shareholder in many cases. Many of the upper executives are on the board. In either case,