Slashdot Mirror


The Glorious Return of the Twinkie

iggymanz writes "The geek food staple the Twinkie is coming back. The sturdy main component of the foundation to the geek four food groups of sugar, fat, caffeine and bacon — with rumored shelf life on the order of the time span to cool a white dwarf to room temperature — the Twinkie, along with Ding-Dongs, Ho-Ho's and Cupcakes, will be returning 15 July 2013 to the shelves under new management of Apollo Global Management and C. Dean Metropoulous & Co which paid over 400 mega dollars (U.S.) for the brands."

83 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. Mega Dollars? by firegate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they like regular dollars with superpowers?

    --
    "Make it idiot proof, and someone will make a better idiot."
    1. Re:Mega Dollars? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. They have the strength of a million normal dollars. Personally, I welcome the newest addition to the SI unit family. (What could be more ironic than the addition of a highly-variable American currency to a French system intended to be as constant as possible? Nothing, friends. Let us rejoice.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Mega Dollars? by SailorSpork · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's part of the new dual-currency system they're introducing in the US off of the highly successful Free 2 Play game system model and gamification of real life. Dollars can be earned through normal gameplay, mega-dollars can only be purchased by the Rich or Politically Connected and are required to unlock the best stuff in the the game.

    3. Re:Mega Dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      A megadollar is about 2.23 forlongdollars.

    4. Re:Mega Dollars? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should it? In 1975(just before the Brazilian Freeze Coffee (an 8 oz cup) on average was 30 cents, 50 cents a year later)
      From http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

      What cost $.30 in 1975 would cost $1.26 in 2012.

      A Tall at Starbucks* is 1.35. And it's in a coffee specialty store, not a Denny's like restaurant.

      *I'm not a fan of Starbucks, I use them becasue they are pretty much everywhere.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Mega Dollars? by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      Serious answer- presumably they mean "million", as in megahertz or megajoule.

      I for one find the idea of SI prefixes for currency exciting in ways I can't quite explain.

      On the other hand, they might have meant $1,048,576, in which case god help us all.

    6. Re:Mega Dollars? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

      As opposed to the local convenience store of choice or gas station which also has coffee and probably a good bit cheaper.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    7. Re:Mega Dollars? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A megadollar could get you two chicks at the same time.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:Mega Dollars? by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lawrence, is that you?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Mega Dollars? by onkelonkel · · Score: 2

      Most Gas_Station_Coffee around here still sits in little round glass jugs on hotplates for hours, and tastes like it came from Satan's bladder. The stuff in the the thermos carafes is somewhat better.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    10. Re:Mega Dollars? by infolation · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal sized dollar in the New York area. Based on this article's example, 400 mega dollars would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.

    11. Re:Mega Dollars? by pjbgravely · · Score: 2

      That makes me feel better about where I live. I don't know of any Starbucks in nearby towns.

      I make my coffee at home where it is cheaper and doesn't taste like the brown water you get from Dunkin Doughnuts.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
  2. Shelf life by Bodero · · Score: 4, Informative

    with rumored shelf life on the order of the time span to cool a white dwarf to room temperature

    From the AP:

    During bankruptcy proceedings, Hostess had said that its overall sales had been declining, although the company didn't give a breakout on the performance of individual brands. But Seban is confident Twinkies will have staying power beyond its re-launch.


    As for the literal shelf-life, Seban is quick to refute the snack cake's fabled indestructibility.


    "Forty-five days - that's it," he said. "They don't last forever."

    1. Re:Shelf life by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Forty-five days - that's it," he said. "They don't last forever."

      That's forty-five days after you take the Twinkie out of the cellophane wrapper, right?

    2. Re:Shelf life by hedwards · · Score: 2

      That was always an urban legend. The oils that they use will always perish at some point, it's just that you don't always notice when oils have gone rancid when they're baked into a chemical product like Twinkies.

    3. Re: Shelf life by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      Bannana cream? How the hell do you get milk fat out of a bannana? Bannanas don't have nipples!

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re: Shelf life by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      Factoid: Every banana you buy at the supermarket has already been "processed" and milked for Twinkie production. Those hard, brown tips at the ends of bananas? Those were the bananas' nipples before they got milked.

    5. Re: Shelf life by Waccoon · · Score: 2

      That's the most insightful thing I've read on Slashdot within the last Twinkie shelf life.

  3. Re:No Wonder You All Are So Fat by Desler · · Score: 2

    So you score with your left hand or the right hand?

  4. Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The geek food staple the Twinkie is coming back.

    Ok, show of hands. Who among you has actually consumed a twinkie after grade school? Last one I had was during the Reagan administration. Obviously they sell but I cannot recall the last time I saw anyone actually eat one. It's like the National Enquirer of foods. They apparently sell lots but you never actually see anyone buying them.

    I don't really know any geeks who eat twinkies either. Is this a thing in some part of the country? I know some geeks who are overly fond of sugary treats (I'm one) but twinkies never seem to be in the shopping cart.

    1. Re:Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by a_big_favor · · Score: 2

      I do eat Ding Dongs but not very often. The rest of it, no.

    2. Re:Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      I've probably eaten 5 Twinkies in my life. We were a Ding Dong household -- that was our choice from mom.

      I will say, Ding Dongs lost some cachet moving away from a tinfoil wrapper. Oh those glorious vacuumjammers!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by asmkm22 · · Score: 2

      I was wondering the same thing. The only people I see buying and eating twinkies are the housewives or cat ladies. There seems to be a real media saturation about them, though, for whatever reason.

    4. Re:Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 4, Funny

      And when you do I'm sure you are thanked profusely... oh wait you're talking about the snack cakes?

    5. Re:Do any of you actually eat Twinkies? by BigBunion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vacujamming a Ding Dong... Is that some sort of S&M?

  5. Re:..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by DexterIsADog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mayor Bloomberg, is that you?

  6. Fallout rations by RenHoek · · Score: 2

    Ever since hearing that after a nuclear war the only two things left are cockroach and twinkies, I've been keeping 2 twinkies in my basement since the 80's. And they're still 100% good. So I guess it's pretty much true.

    1. Re:Fallout rations by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      and by "still good" you mean you have eaten parts without getting sick?

      They're Twinkies. If you didn't get sick, they wouldn't be "still good".

  7. All part of a secret government plan by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    The USA public may have been sad at the thought of a Twinkies shortage, but the Secret Shadow Government engineered this re-booting of production for one reason. They know we need massive stores of Twinkies to sustain our brave zombie-killers in the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  8. Re:In other news... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    and you should be able to buy them anywhere Pabst Beer can be bought (two other overpriced-for-the-nutrition-you-get brands).

    PBR is overpriced?!?!

    It is one of the cheaper beers around. To me, it tastes just about the same as Budwiser or the like. I'm not often in mood for the chug'em ice cold US lagers like these, but they do have their place (on extremely hot days here in NOLA), and I'd just as soon grab a PBR as a Bud or Bud Light, especially since the price is much lower.

    When not sweating my ass off, and wanting to enjoy a beer for taste and more..I got for the better stuff, but PBR as far as that style of beer goes, is good as any of the rest and you often find it rock bottom prices.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. Re:In other news... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

    PBR costs money correct?
    That makes it over priced, they would have to pay me to drink it.

    If you want bottled water, just drink that. If you must pickup a sixer of megabrewery product for a hot day you could get some blue moon.

  10. Re:Over $400 mega dollars (U.S.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    They don't write "news for nerds" anymore under the logo for a reason.

  11. Re:In other news... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    There are copyright restrictions on Hostess recipes.

    No there aren't. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Need a control for the experiment by sjbe · · Score: 2

    I've been keeping 2 twinkies in my basement since the 80's. And they're still 100% good.

    Unless you actually eat them how would you know?

  13. Re:In other news... by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

    PBR is 153 calories, for about fifty cents a can. 300 calories to the dollar is not bad at all.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  14. Re:huh? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    It's like an Americanised eclair. Pastry on the outside, cream on the inside. I don't think they usually put chocolate on the top either. Damn now I have a mad craving for eclairs.

    On that note the geek culture of eating shit needs to stop, I mean this stuff combined with a sedentary lifestyle is basically slow or not so slow suicide. Eat small amounts of healthy food, cut back on the coffee and cut out the booze, get regular exercise. Being fat isn't fun or smart and sugar rushes wreck anyone's concentration. Diabetes, no thanks. I'm not a fitness freak but come on, take a half hour at the start of the day to prepare some sushi or maybe a ham and sundried tomato bagel with a touch of cheese for a treat, delicious and filling. Have a cup of green tea.

  15. Geek Food Staple? by DrGamez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could you not just write "Bazinga! 42! All Your Base!! xD!" instead?
    If anything, the Twinkie is the food staple to those who are too nostalgic or stupid to know to buy ANYTHING ELSE.

    The sturdy main component of the foundation to the geek four food groups of sugar, fat, caffeine and bacon

    Ugh. I feel ashamed this is in the summary.

  16. 36 million units sold in 2011 by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    No-one eats them. Why do you think the company went bankrupt?

    They sold 36 million of them in 2011. That's a lot of twinkies if "no-one" is eating them. I just can't figure out who.

    Why do you think the company went bankrupt?

    They went bankrupt because their (union) labor costs, pension costs and debt load. Incompetent management probably played a role somewhere in there too. They had significant revenue but their costs were out of line with the amount of revenue.

    1. Re:36 million units sold in 2011 by geekoid · · Score: 5, Informative

      The union took cuts twice, and each time management gave themselves huge bonuses (million +), . SO after that, why would the union cut yet again?

      The union stepped up and did their part, and management screwed them, and refused to make an actual management changes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:36 million units sold in 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The unions accepted job and benefit cuts totalling $110 million. They did more than their fair share.

    3. Re:36 million units sold in 2011 by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

      The union stepped up and did their part, and management screwed them, and refused to make an actual management changes.

      Actually, no.

      I followed this story. The way it actually worked:

      Hostess went into bankruptcy in 2004. It found investors who bailed it out and it kept going.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands#Bankruptcy_.282004.29

      Hostess went into bankruptcy again. It found additional investors who bailed it out and it kept going.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostess_Brands#Bankruptcy_and_liquidation_.282012.29

      Hostess was running out of money. Management set up a deal that would cut costs by paying workers less. This was not what the workers wanted, but according to management, it was essential to save the jobs.

      One thing that riled up the workers: management got paid a lot. In an effort to make the workers happier, the top four guys at Hostess had their salaries lowered to $1 per year for 2012.

      http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

      But the major costs at Hostess had to do with worker salaries, particularly with respect to delivery of Hostess products. Union rules required Hostess snack foods and Wonder bread foods to be delivered on different trucks, which had to be loaded by different people. A "Hostess" worker couldn't load a "Wonder" truck, a "Wonder" driver couldn't drive a "Hostess" truck, and the company couldn't contract out delivery. So, if a small town in a distant location wanted to buy Hostess cakes and Wonder bread, two trucks would have to drive out there, not one. Also, there is some complicated stuff I don't really understand about Hostess paying pensions to a whole bunch of workers, many of whom had never worked for Hostess.

      http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/111912-633985-unions-dont-always-benefit-workers.htm?p=full

      http://ohioansforworkplacefreedom.com/how-unions-killed-twinkies-and-wonderbread/

      Now, pay attention, because here's the key part: the Teamsters Union had been fighting with Hostess management, and they had seen the accounting numbers, and they believed that (at least on this issue) management was not lying. If Hostess didn't cut labor costs, it was doomed.

      I am not an expert on unions, but my impression is that the Teamsters Union is not exactly a shill for management.

      It wasn't Teamsters Union workers who went on strike: it was workers of a smaller union called the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM). The Teamsters Union publicly told BCTGM not to strike. Check out this page from the Teamsters Union web site:

      http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess

      The story gets even crazier. Management publicly told BCTGM that if the strike wasn't over by a specific date, they would shut down Hostess. BCTGM continued to strike. Management shut down the company. Then... a judge ordered both sides into an extra round of negotiations, and I thought to myself, "Here is where BCTGM can back down yet save face. They were unwavering in the face of a threat, they can proudly tell their members that they didn't back down until they were forced to, but they can still save all the jobs." But it was not to be. BCTGM continued to strike and Hostess shut down.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  17. Re:huh? by BioTitan · · Score: 2

    I love it. I'm calling Twinkies "American eclairs" from here out.

  18. Re:Over $400 mega dollars (U.S.) by DrGamez · · Score: 4, Funny

    I honestly have not noticed that until just right now.

    Oh man I need a minute to digest this.

  19. Not really surprising by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason that Hostess went under is that management refused to play nice with their unionized workforce, and they decided that they'd rather have no company than a union shop. Now that the union is busted, they've restarted production with a non-unionized workforce, "generously" allowing those workers to return to their old jobs at about 1/3 what they were paid before.

    And if you're wondering which side to blame: Before the strike that ended Hostess, there were a couple rounds of the union taking pay and benefit cuts followed by management giving themselves bonuses for convincing the union to accept the cuts. That's why the union didn't buy the "but if you don't take the cuts, the company will go under" argument.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Not really surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      $1.8 million to a management team (the collected bonuses) is
      a) Miniscule in comparison to how much the labor wanted for their jobs where they press a button and no skill is required.
      b) The only real motivation for the management team to stay with a sinking ship instead of looking for work elsewhere, when a management team was needed.

      Anonymous because Slashdot karma. Anybody who isn't wildly anti-business gets modded down here.

    2. Re:Not really surprising by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few million in management bonuses has exactly dick to do with the billions paid in wages each year. Get some perspective, the managements job is to do EXACTLY that. Its not a charity, its a business.

      And lets remember that when hostess closed up shop, the union tried to get an injunction against the sale of assets to which the judge replied basically saying 'no, you got what you deserved'.

      The union pushed too hard and lost, next time perhaps they won't be so quick to side with the greedy fucks in the union ... who also give themselves millions in bonuses when they do ... well pretty much ANYTHING.

      Unions in America are a joke, they're just like lawyers. They don't actually accomplish anything, but do their best to drive up costs so they can take a bigger cut from the workers.

      You need to stop thinking the union cares about the workers. Union management cares about the same thing company management does, they just bullshit you into believing otherwise,, and this is why they don't exist in any meaningful form in right to work states. When they can't use strong arm tactics to prevent people from working if they aren't part of the union, they cease to exist. Get the picture? They aren't your friends, stop being so naive.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Not really surprising by captbob2002 · · Score: 2

      you may not have been getting your Twinkies, but clearly you are still drinking the Kool-Aid.

    4. Re:Not really surprising by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1. "how much the labor wanted for their jobs"
      The union was protesting wage cuts, not demanding wage increases. Management had already agreed to what their labor was worth, and then re-neged on that agreement.

      2. "The only real motivation for the management team to stay"
      How come management needs nice big bonuses in order to stay when labor is supposed to accept 25-30% wage cuts without complaint?

      3. Regardless of how large or small the change is, it certainly bad form. An equivalent scenario: Your sister tells you she's broke and the rent is due, and being a decent fellow you help her out. She gets your check, and then flies to Cancun for a week. 3 months later, she calls you again and says she's in a jam and needs your financial help. Are you as quick to support her the second time? How about the third time?

      And, as a sibling poster pointed out, this was also about robbing the entirety of the workers' pension fund.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Not really surprising by captbob2002 · · Score: 2

      What, that unions are to blame for all that is wrong with corporate America? Sure plenty of evidence for that. Tired of the canards regarding unions being tossed around as "facts."

  20. The Not-So-Glorious Reality by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is another case of corporate S.O.P: declare bankruptcy for one reason; to void any and all obligations to current - and especially - retired employees.

    So as you gorge on your new Twinkiees, try to ignore that no doubt they were made by newly or re-hired workers from the now-permanent underclass: longer hours, lower wages, little or no benefits, and laughable health insurance.

    Not that much of this will matter to the increasingly Randian crowd on Slashdot.

    1. Re:The Not-So-Glorious Reality by HCase · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Not that much of this will matter to the increasingly Randian crowd on Slashdot."

      Oh, please. You know that if a worker just shows a little initiative, and works hard on the twinkie production line, they will be rewarded with wage increases and promotions until they are able to join elite non moocher society. /s

    2. Re:The Not-So-Glorious Reality by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      This is another case of corporate S.O.P: declare bankruptcy for one reason; to void any and all obligations to current - and especially - retired employees.

      This is one reason why I dislike corporate pensions so much -- there are so many ways for companies to get out of those obligations. Never accept compensation that assumes that the company will even be around anymore in the next month, much less the next year.

      Corporate 401ks are almost benign in comparison.

    3. Re:The Not-So-Glorious Reality by captbob2002 · · Score: 2

      When Hostess began to face financial woes, the company’s CEO got a 300% salary increase from $750,000 to $2,250,000. It was discovered that the former Hostess CEO tripled his salary in early 2012. Meanwhile, a number of top executives saw massive pay raises, some nearly doubling their salaries. The new CEO blamed union workers for the company’s bankruptcy filing—yet it's the workers who were the very ones who gave concessions multiple times in the past few years. In December, a staggering $1.8 million in bonuses were awarded to executives AFTER the bankruptcy filing. In late 2012, Hostess Brands admitted to The Wall Street Journal that money taken out of workers' paychecks—intended for their retirement funds—was used for company operations instead. Hostess is one example of executives' blame-the-worker and blame-a-union game.

      I could've run the company into the ground for far less money.

  21. Re:In other news... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

    Calories are not equal to nutrition at all, unless you're on hospice.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  22. Re:No Wonder You All Are So Fat by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Twinkies and other processed foods aren't the problem. One Twinkies a week isn't likely to make a person gain weight, unless they're taking in exactly the number of calories that they're burning.

    The problem is that people aren't moving enough and are eating too much. The fact that Twinkies are effectively just a source of calories without any redeeming value doesn't really factor into it.

    I remember having a Twinkie once, and it was one of the most disgusting "foods" I've ever eaten. And I've eaten spiders, scorpions and tripe.

  23. Re:No Wonder You All Are So Fat by hedwards · · Score: 2

    It's not really supposed to taste good. It's comfort food. As in it presses specific buttons in the brain to make one feel better in the short term. Sort of similar to why some people have a harder time of managing their sodium intake than others. I have very little compulsion to consume too much salt, but I have to be really careful about my sugar intake because that's a problem for me.

  24. Re:WTF? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems wrong that a brand discontinued by its owner should sell for $400 million.
    Perhaps I just don't understand the consumer business.
    Maybe that's why I'm a hardware designer...

    It's not really the consumer business, it's the corporate chop-shop/knacker business.

    "Hostess Brands" has reasonably strong product lines and revenue; but it was having trouble with those pesky 'employees' who wanted 'the wages and benefits specified in their contracts', like some kind of parasitic commies or something. Some of them even had the temerity to suggest that demanding that they take major cuts when the 'Chief restructuring officer' and other higher ups had received 80% raises was a show of rather bad faith.

    By chopping up the company for parts, the various brands, which are valuable, can be divorced from any "legacy pension and medical benefit obligations and restrictive work rules"(as the company describes them, in the self-pitying tones of one who has conveniently forgotten agreeing to them...) and turned into sweet, sweet cash, any facilities worth keeping can be sold off, and operations and creditors who actually matter can continue as normal. (Thanks to a little strategic-under-funding of the pension plan, American taxpayers will get to do their part to ensure that real creditors come out unscathed.

  25. No banana's harmed in making of Twinkies by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason they are known to have a long shelf life is because they use banana cream instead of dairy cream, giving them a comparatively longer shelf life.

    They have used vanilla cream instead of banana cream since around WWII when there was a banana shortage.

  26. Union negotiators screwed up by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The union took cuts twice, and each time management gave themselves huge bonuses (million +), . SO after that, why would the union cut yet again?

    The union played a game of chicken with management and lost. I think it is clear the management was incompetent (and greedy) but apparently so was the union. The company had already been through bankruptcy once before. The union leadership BADLY misread the strength of their position and it cost a lot of people their jobs.

    I think the negotiation went something like this.

    Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
    Union: We're going on strike
    Mgt: We're going to liquidate the company if you do that
    Union: You're a bunch of liars and poopyheads
    Mgt: We warned you
                        Mgt takes company into Chapter 7
    Union: Oh shit, they weren't kidding.
    Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses before this thing completely goes under [/evil cackle]

    1. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nice rewrite of what actually happened. One of the two major reason that Hostess escaped bankruptcy in 2009 was that the union allowed thousands in job cuts and agreed to benefit cuts to the tune of $110 million. So to act like the unions did nothing is utter nonsense. They only threatened striking after the incompetent management told them that they had to make even deeper concessions

    2. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but the union also had in the contract that breads had to be shipped separately than cakes, thus you had to send two trucks to a store to stock it.

      It's not all the union's fault, and it's not all management's fault. They were both culpable.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It went more like this.

      Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
      Union: OK
      Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses
      Later...
      Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
      Union: OK
      Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses
      Later...
      Mgt: We need wage concessions, etc.
      Union: We're going on strike
      Mgt: We're going to liquidate the company if you do that
      Union: You're a bunch of liars and poopyheads
      Mgt: We warned you
                                              Mgt takes company into Chapter 7
      Union: Oh shit, they weren't kidding.
      Mgt: Let's pay our selves some handsome bonuses before this thing completely goes under [/evil cackle]

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by kimvette · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the unions' defense: both the teamsters and the bakers union had agreed to concessions previously, while executives were ignoring the consultant they hired to fix problems and instead used Hostess as their own personal piggy bank, pocketing everything that was saved by cutting benefits and pay. It wasn't until last year that the board finally grew wise and axed the executives and promoted the outside consultant, and they did seriously try to turn the company around. The CEO of the time did NOT draw bonuses after taking the company into chapter 7.

      The bakers union had cause (based on previous experience) to disbelieve the new boss ("meet the new boss, same as the old boss" is usually true) and think they were playing chicken when they threatened to board up the company. They weren't kidding, the new boss was seriously trying to turn things around and Hostess was not liquid enough to survive, so they recalled all the trucks the next morning, closed the factories, and that was that.

      Interesting tidbit: the Teamsters knew the score actually tried to coax the Bakers Union negotiators to agree, because the cut the last Hostess CEO requested was to be a temporary one, until (if) the company got back on track. The Bakers' Union ignored the Teamsters and decided it was another bluff. Unfortunately for Hostess employees, it was not a bluff. It was game over.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by jdev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unions had already agreed to $100 million in concessions during the previous bankruptcy. The bakers union was being asked for something like an additional 25% in cuts over 5 years, while there were reports of raises and bonuses for management. On top of all that, management had stopped contributing to the pension fund and there is still a lawsuit over that. Agreeing to the cuts would have taken wages well under the market average could have depressed wages for the entire bakers industry. So let's not try to play this as a one-sided "unions are dumb" argument. There were good reasons for the unions to reject the concessions management proposed.

    6. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong.

      Private equity backers had loaded the company with debt, That was the problem. The trivial saving that might have happened if they combined the two entities(breads and cakes) has just become an knee reaction from anti-union groups.
      lets not that division went up into management. Upper Management tried play the unions off each other to take the light off the private equity shenanigans.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, if you know the company is going to tank, agreeing to wage cuts only means that you will end up getting less unemployment when the ax does fall, since the benefits are based on your salary.

    8. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by dwpro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The union" _is_ the employees, and they do have a seat at the table during decision making, that's what collective bargaining allows. You think this is a bad thing, I think it's the only thing that will keep our society together (division of power, some semblance of equality.)

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    9. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would be nice if internet feudalists didn't offer totally blind support for every robber baron.

      I mean, are you denying that the union accepted several wage consessions before striking? Are you denying that management then gave themselves raises? Are these not facts?

      The article's depiction of the company's fall omits crucial context and leaves readers with the impression that the act of discarding union workers is what allowed the "trimmed-down" company to re-emerge. The AP did not tell readers that, just three years prior to Mr. Rayburn's negotiations with labor, union workers made "substantial concessions" to aid the company's financial health, or that Hostess stopped contributing to workers' pensions and cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent."

      Nor did the AP story mention the dramatic pay raises Hostess provided its executives during its financial struggles. For example, Brian Driscoll -- Hostess CEO in March 2011 -- received a salary increase from $750,000 to $2.25 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

      Tell me, in what way is my support blind? It appears to be supported by facts.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Union negotiators screwed up by Hatta · · Score: 2

      No, Actually, they're not facts.

      And I suppose you know more about the situation than CNN and the WSJ? It's possible they reported incorrectly, but businesses keep financial records so it should be easy to verify. What reason do you have to doubt those assertions besides their conflict with your predetermined narrative?

      And would you please offer evidence that I'm a "feudalist"?

      Capitalism is feudalism with better PR.

      You're clearly an unabashed socialist; why be insulted by the mere reference?

      I'm not insulted by the assertion that I'm a socialist. I'm insulted by the assertion that my support is blind. It's well supported by the available facts.

      Go back and read my first post in this thread. All it did was more accurately describe the situation that actually happened, and I was able to provide references from respected journalistic sources. YOU were the one that interpreted my post as support. Why is that? Because the facts support the union, that's why.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  27. Glorious indeed by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome back, Type II Diabetes. We have missed you.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  28. Re:..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Pointing out how terrible something is for you != banning it.

  29. Re:..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    Ahh yes, because one's lack of self-control is the reason we should implement a law telling a company what size cup they can serve their drinks in.

    Should we tell car manufacturers their cars can't go faster than 75 mph too while we're at it?*

    Again, we're trying to find a technical solution to a human problem.

    * Have to make sure to get in the car analogy

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  30. Re:Misread negotiating position by sjbe · · Score: 2

    It's not the union's failt they weren't willing to shoulder the entirety of the cuts while management dicked around.

    Actually it is their fault. The union could have conceded more but chose not to. They chose to take the risk of liquidation and they came up snake eyes. They let their ego get in front of their BATNA. Given the financial position of the company management clearly held all the cards in this negotiation. I genuinely feel bad for the union employees since the management seems to have been a bunch of douchebags but they made the choice to risk unemployment over further cuts.

  31. All new twinkies! by goffster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Same great product! Without that heavy union after-taste.

  32. Re:SI units are fiat units by Applekid · · Score: 2

    Why 299792458? Why not 299792459? Why not 300000000? Why not 1000000000? And let's not even get into how long a second is.

    Backwards compatibility, from when the meter was defined by "the length of this here stick."

    Seconds, though? Absolutely. Sorcery that is. I guess there had to be a unit of time to make all of science useful in some way, but seconds are really SI unfriendly since, while you could use units like kiloseconds, you can't really abandon hours/minutes for it.

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  33. Re:Over $400 mega dollars (U.S.) by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least they didn't say 390.625 Mebidollars.

  34. Re:SI units are fiat units by sconeu · · Score: 2

    Wasn't the meter originally defined as "1/10000 the distance from the equator to the north pole, as measured along the meridian running through Paris"?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  35. Re: ..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

    Well... If all you do-gooder types would stop asking to pay for everyone's healthcare, maybe you wouldn't have to complain so much about everyone's lifestyle.

    Speaking of having to pay for healthcare being an excuse to control lifestyles... I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.

  36. Re:SI units are fiat units by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

    The kilometer was 1/10000 of 90 degrees of latitude. Which of course was for less natural for navigation than the nautical mile, which was 1 minute of latitude. The metric system is just a relic of the days when calculations were done on paper, and needs to be abandoned in favor of the One True System of measure: the Furlong-Firkin-Fortnight system!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  37. Re: ..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.

    Yeah! This. I hear that the hetero style often results in pregnancy (a horrible debilitating disease, if you ask any woman, especially around 9 months in) and huge long-term costs as everyone pays to feed and educate the results. It should be outlawed.

  38. Re: ..and this is ./-worthy news, how? by scot4875 · · Score: 2

    You were paying for everybody's healthcare already in about the most inefficient way possible (ER visits), you're just too dumb to know it.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  39. The management wasn't incompetent by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've got MOD points but I can't let this slide. The management was very, very competent. It's just they were after something other than a successful company. To wit: The Pension Fund. The hard part about stealing a pension fund is doing it legally. It requires enormous skill, business and legal knowledge to do it.

    What Hostess' management did wasn't just mismanagement, it was a complete lack of management. The bought the company, paid themselves just well enough to stay within the bounds of legality, and then ignored the company entirely. They put no effort into expanding, into controlling and managing the supply chain, or into anything else. Then they sat back, waiting for the company to die and used the pension to pay back the creditors they'd racked up debt with.

    The last part that makes it all nice and legal is when a judge ruled that the creditors get paid before employees do. If you paid your own cash money into your pension while working at Hostess you literally got robbed. As an added bonus they killed a major Union without any bad press.

    But nobody talks about that. All they talk about is playing an imaginary game of chicken. FYI: You can't win a game that the other side isn't really playing.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  40. I'm old enough to remember what Coke did by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    to Unions in South America. Mostly because it wasn't wasn't that long ago...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/