The Hostess-Twinkie who did what to kill it/them thread

[Againsheila]

I think there should be a law that keeps unions from killing the corporation(the jobs). So they can only go to up until the point where it isn't profitable anymore.

Seriously, Unions shouldn't be able to destroy jobs like this.

I think there should be a law to keep inept CEOs from killing the corporation. Seriously, CEOs and management shouldn't be able to destroy jobs like this.

 

[Againsheila]

[

Indeed
why invest when you already know the union will make
unreasonable demands and force the company to close, anyway

Fair pay is not an unreasonable demand.

Again, simple enough solution. A law gets passed. No executive can be paid more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I just don't think any CEO of a failing company should be getting a raise, let alone a 300% raise, especially while forcing their employees to take cutbacks.

 

[HUGGY]

Never ate a twinkie. They look gay. The name looks gay.

Who eats twinkies anyway?

 

[Againsheila]

Don't be surprised when Mexico and China are kicking our ass in 10 years. Honestly, we can't kick the free market with its market forces in the face and be successful. A corporation should have the power to be profitable. Sure, you can protest for better pay but if the damn thing goes out of business. Well, you're fucking yourself.

They are already kicking our ass. Changes in corporate laws, greed, outsourcing and insourcing have seen to that. It's a race to the bottom, and we're winning.

Sure, ship our jobs overseas, bring in people to lower the wages here, but in the end, no one will be able to afford the products so the corporations will end up killing themselves. Except of course, those that cater to the super wealthy. They are protected, they have increased their income while the rest of us have lost ours.

We don't have a free market, we haven't for a long time. If we did, we would never have bailed out the banks.

 

[Againsheila]

[

Indeed
why invest when you already know the union will make
unreasonable demands and force the company to close, anyway

Fair pay is not an unreasonable demand.

Again, simple enough solution. A law gets passed. No executive can be paid more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

My god
how sad you really want a gov't to do this,,,,
Simple, is the word I would use as well

The high standard of living in the US has been
brought about by movements towards a free market
not by some dictates from some gov't bureaucratic putz

If gov't could just dictate what they want to make the perfect
society then

Cuba, former USSR would have been heaven

Sorry, but we USED to have a high standard of living. We've been losing ground ever since the 70's, except of course the for the very, very wealthy, who've increased their income by nearly 300%, while the rest of us have stagnated or lost income. This comes from changes in corporate laws.

There is no excuse for a corporation to give their CEO a THREE HUNDRED PERCENT raise while their workers are forced to take even more cuts in pay and concessions.

GREED has killed our economy.

 

[FJO]

Why dont they just reopen the plant to a non-union state..like South Carolina?

I think their business is hurt as much by the emerging trend of eating healthier than just the unions. Revenue is down because people have wised up to the idea that eating shitty food will kill you.

If people think that giving up food that they ENJOY to eat, obviously never heard the expression that "I would rather add life to my years than years to my life".

If eating a Twinkie (takes about 5 minutes) reduces my life by five minutes it's an even trade.

 

[Katzndogz]

[

Indeed
why invest when you already know the union will make
unreasonable demands and force the company to close, anyway

Fair pay is not an unreasonable demand.

Again, simple enough solution. A law gets passed. No executive can be paid more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I just don't think any CEO of a failing company should be getting a raise, let alone a 300% raise, especially while forcing their employees to take cutbacks.

Then you will be pleased to know that after giving himself that raise, Brian Driscoll was fired and replaced by Gregory Rayburn who reduced the salaries of all top executives to a dollar a year.

 

[KissMy]

Prices at the Hostess stores were far cheaper than their non-union competition. How was that possible because the media narrative is saying the opposite? Could it possibly be management's fault? Nooooooo! - The rich are job creators?

Wait! - Who owns the media who told you it was the unions fault????

The All-Union Hostess stores even sell wonder bread cheaper than All Anti-Union Walmart.

 

[Againsheila]

Fair pay is not an unreasonable demand.

Again, simple enough solution. A law gets passed. No executive can be paid more than 10 times what the average line worker makes.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I just don't think any CEO of a failing company should be getting a raise, let alone a 300% raise, especially while forcing their employees to take cutbacks.

Then you will be pleased to know that after giving himself that raise, Brian Driscoll was fired and replaced by Gregory Rayburn who reduced the salaries of all top executives to a dollar a year.

Do you have a link? I would like to read about that.

 

[Katzndogz]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

What's more, the union knew exactly what it was doing because they made their demands while Hostess was in the middle of a bankruptcy knowing that it would never be able to meet the union demands.

 

[Nosmo King]

When are the working people of America going to wise up and just take it in the shorts? In this country, by Conservative standards, we must coddle the rich and screw the working class. We're in a serious race to the bottom with a global standard of living set by Asia and Latin America. We can't get there if working class families continue to fight for decent wages and benefits.

Once the middle class has been eroded to a shadow of their former glory, Conservatives can them get about the business of making sure the wealthy get more and even more. Then and only then will the wealthy realize their noblis oblige morality and grant the working class a few low paying, no benefit jobs.

Meanwhile, lets cut the last braces underpinning the social safety net. We need to eliminate government regulations like OSHA and the National Labor Relations Board clearing the way for the wealthy to accumulate even more of the economic pie. Despite the fact that the wealthy make up only 2% of the wage earners, Conservatives are happy to do their bidding and cut the legs out from under themselves and their fellow countrymen. Why? Who knows! Maybe Fox and Limbaugh can 'educate' us.

Take you communist idiocy and shove deeply up your ass. I have seen what communism is and I dont want it. I will keep my freedom you pathetic sheep.

Is that your argument? Is that all the better you can express your opinion? Is it because you have no argument or opinion? Or are you too ignorant to make a cohesive argument?

Keep your freedom, but I don't believe you understand what freedom means.

 

[Nosmo King]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

What's more, the union knew exactly what it was doing because they made their demands while Hostess was in the middle of a bankruptcy knowing that it would never be able to meet the union demands.

The rich aren't job creators. Consumer demand creates jobs. Without consumer demand, who would open a factory or shop? Without customers, who's going to buy what the wealthy are selling? No rich guy ever opened up his tax bill and, after noticing he is paying 35% rather than 39% suddenly decided to create some jobs. If, on the other hand, there was a vibrant middle class armed with disposable income, opening a factory or shop would be a winning position.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

[Like the man describes it in the article "The Kamikaze labor Union" destroys the company it works for.
Obama set the stage for this when he bailed out the UAW with GM and Chrysler. The UAW inevitably caused their companies' failure, but they got the reward. A lot of other unions are going to take their cue from this. What's going to happen when the bulk of the voters who have no skin in the game, feel no pain from their actions, but reap their rewards determine the direction the country is headed in?. A president for life Obama and a personal wealth tax when not enough personal income is available to support the Obama pander fest?]

"The news about the bankruptcy of Hostess, maker of the Twinkie and other legendary junk foods, touched off some memories of growing up in a mid-sized Midwestern town in the 1970s and '80s. No, not that kind of memory, though come to think of it, the 1980s was the last time I actually ate a Hostess snack. What I'm recalling has a lot less nostalgic charm: the whole phenomenon of a kamikaze labor union that keeps demanding more for workers--who end up getting nothing when their employer goes belly-up.

That's pretty much what the unions did, or tried to do, to three of the big employers in our area, and it taught me some early lessons about the real nature of labor unions and of government intervention.

I grew up in an area known as the Quad Cities, a cluster of four towns in Illinois and Iowa, on opposite banks of the Mississippi River. The big local employers at the time were the Rock Island Arsenal, which made howitzers and machine guns for the US Army, the celebrated Rock Island Line, and two big manufacturers of farm equipment, John Deere and International Harvester.

What might strike you about this list is that half of these companies no longer exist. I watched them go down, and that's why the Hostess story seems so familiar.

Take the Rock Island Line, the popular name for the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad. The line's Wikipedia entry tells the story pretty much as I remember it, only worse.

"By the summer of 1979, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the United Transportation Union had accepted new agreements. The Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks (BRAC) held firm to their demand that pay increases be back dated to the expiration date of the previous agreement.

"The Rock Island offered to open the books to show the precarious financial condition of the road in an effort to get the BRAC in line with the other unions that had already signed agreements. Fred J. Kroll, president of the BRAC, declined the offer to audit the books of the Rock Island. Kroll pulled his BRAC clerks off the job in August, 1979. Picket lines went up at every terminal on the Rock Island's system and the operating brotherhoods honored the picket lines. The Rock Island ground to a halt."

Here's where it gets worse. The railroad was bouncing back and showing signs that it might survive the strike--so the government intervened to shut it down and finish it off for good. Why? Because the survival of a railroad was considered less important than the survival of a union.

"The Ingram management team operated as much of the Rock Island as they could. Trains slowly began to move, with more traffic being hauled every week of the strike. President Jimmy Carter issued a back-to-work order that BRAC dismissed. Still more traffic flowed on the strikebound Rock Island. Seeing the trains rolling despite the strike and fearing a Florida East Coast strikebreaking situation, the unions appealed to the [Federal Railway Administration] and [the Interstate Commerce Commission] for relief. Despite that Rock Island management had been able to move 80% of pre-strike tonnage, at the behest of the Carter administration, the ICC declared a transportation emergency declaring that the RI would not be able to move the 1979 grain harvest to market. The ICC issued a Directed Service Order authorizing the Kansas City Terminal Railway to take over operations....

"On January 24, 1980, Judge McGarr elected not to review the Rock Island's final plan of reorganization. Instead, Judge McGarr initiated the shutdown and liquidation of the Rock Island Railroad."

Then there was International Harvester.

"In 1979, IH named a new CEO, who was determined to improve profit margins and drastically cut a ballooning cost structure. Unprofitable model lines were terminated and factory production curtailed. By the end of the year, IH profits were at their highest in 10 years, but cash reserves were still too low. Union members became increasingly irate over production cutbacks and other cost-cutting measures. In the spring and summer of 1979, IH began short-term planning for a strike that seemed inevitable. Then on November 1, IH announced figures showing that president and chairman Archie McCardell received a $1.8 million (in 1979 values) bonus. McCardell sought overtime, work rule, and other changes from the UAW, which led to a strike on November 2, 1979.

"Soon after, the economy turned unfavorable, and IH faced a financial crisis. The strike lasted approximately six months. When it ended, IH had lost almost $600 million (in 1979 value; over $2 billion today).

"By 1981 the company's finances were at their lowest point ever. The strike, accompanied by the economy and internal corporate problems, had placed IH in a hole that had only a slim way out. Things only got worse until 1984, when the bitter end came.

"International Harvester, following long negotiations, agreed to sell its agricultural products division to Tenneco, Inc. on November 26, 1984.... Following the merger, tractor production at Harvester's Rock Island, Illinois, Farmall Works ceased in May 1985."...."

RealClearMarkets - The Parasite That Kills Its Hostess

 

[bitterlyclingin]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

No rich guy ever opened up his tax bill and, after noticing he is paying 35% rather than 39% suddenly decided to create some jobs. QUOTE]

Its the rich guy who loans the corporation the money to build the factory to employ the middle class worker who buys what the factory produces. When you perpetually rape and sodomize, loot, extort and steal the rich guys capital like the Communist Obama intends to do, no factories get built, no middle class paychecks get issued no desirable products get purchased. What will result from Obama's policies, a guy who managed to earn a lousy 2.6 GPA with lots of incompletes, who obviously spent the time he was scheduled to be in his math and economics classes inhaling the last little bits of marijuana smoke off the underside of the roof of the 'Choomwagon' instead of listening attentively, will be a self reinforcing downward spiral until all the members of this former economy have to spend their waking hours foraging for the fruits, roots and nuts necessary for their survival. You simply can't build an economic policy centered around only pandering to enough parasites to ensure your re election. In 1937 Roosevelt &Co enacted the Undistributed Profits Tax to balance their budget. The major effect the tax had was to send a US economy struggling to emerge from the Great Depression back to depths not seen since the earliest days of the Depression. Obamacare and the looming threat of a whole host of new taxes will have the same effect today. Unfortunately there will always be those that say this is the new economy or the new era and the old rules no longer apply, just as stockbrokers did in the late 90's when both Intel and Texas Instruments were trading at stratospheric levels and unheard of metrics. The brokers were busy telling their clients this was the new economy, the old values no longer applied and they had to buy now.
There's a reason Economics is called the "Dismal science" and people like Obama choose to wander off elsewhere and take in some "Good bud" instead and later rely on their ability to lie while reading off a teleprompter in order to convince people of the validity of their policies.

 

[Katzndogz]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

What's more, the union knew exactly what it was doing because they made their demands while Hostess was in the middle of a bankruptcy knowing that it would never be able to meet the union demands.

The rich aren't job creators. Consumer demand creates jobs. Without consumer demand, who would open a factory or shop? Without customers, who's going to buy what the wealthy are selling? No rich guy ever opened up his tax bill and, after noticing he is paying 35% rather than 39% suddenly decided to create some jobs. If, on the other hand, there was a vibrant middle class armed with disposable income, opening a factory or shop would be a winning position.

Without a consumer demand, an innovator will open a factory and create a consumer demand. The rich guy opened up his tax bill and, after noticing that he was paying 35% rather than 39% realized that he had money to invest in a business that would create jobs. If what you say is true, communist Russia and communist China and even Cuba would be the most dynamic economies on the planet.

The mistake is in thinking that you can take from one class and give to another to create a dynamic economy but you can't. The more the government takes, and gives for nothing in return, the worse the economy gets.

 

[Nosmo King]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

No rich guy ever opened up his tax bill and, after noticing he is paying 35% rather than 39% suddenly decided to create some jobs. QUOTE]

Its the rich guy who loans the corporation the money to build the factory to employ the middle class worker who buys what the factory produces. When you perpetually rape and sodomize, loot, extort and steal the rich guys capital like the Communist Obama intends to do, no factories get built, no middle class paychecks get issued no desirable products get purchased. What will result from Obama's policies, a guy who managed to earn a lousy 2.6 GPA with lots of incompletes, who obviously spent the time he was scheduled to be in his math and economics classes inhaling the last little bits of marijuana smoke off the underside of the roof of the 'Choomwagon' instead of listening attentively, will be a self reinforcing downward spiral until all the members of this former economy have to spend their waking hours foraging for the fruits, roots and nuts necessary for their survival. You simply can't build an economic policy centered around only pandering to enough parasites to ensure your re election. In 1937 Roosevelt &Co enacted the Undistributed Profits Tax to balance their budget. The major effect the tax had was to send a US economy struggling to emerge from the Great Depression back to depths not seen since the earliest days of the Depression. Obamacare and the looming threat of a whole host of new taxes will have the same effect today. Unfortunately there will always be those that say this is the new economy or the new era and the old rules no longer apply, just as stockbrokers did in the late 90's when both Intel and Texas Instruments were trading at stratospheric levels and unheard of metrics. The brokers were busy telling their clients this was the new economy, the old values no longer applied and they had to buy now.
There's a reason Economics is called the "Dismal science" and people like Obama choose to wander off elsewhere and take in some "Good bud" instead and later rely on their ability to lie while reading off a teleprompter in order to convince people of the validity of their policies.

Do you suppose that a 39% marginal tax rate is really such a threat to the Republic? What was the rate when last we enjoyed eight years of peace and prosperity under President Clinton? Was the economy able to grow under such a burdensome marginal rate?

The major problem with the modern American Conservative is they are not merely conservative but Radical. You guys don't just want to roll back government to before FDR, but to before Theodore Roosevelt. Economics has become draped in your spin as freedom. Sell it elsewhere to someone as gullible as a modern American Conservative. I don't see a 39% top marginal rate as a fire bomb against freedoms. I see it as a step toward economic fairness.

 

[Nosmo King]

The rich are job creators and the unions are job killers. The Bakers Union killed Hostess the same way CALPERS killed San Bernardino.

What's more, the union knew exactly what it was doing because they made their demands while Hostess was in the middle of a bankruptcy knowing that it would never be able to meet the union demands.

The rich aren't job creators. Consumer demand creates jobs. Without consumer demand, who would open a factory or shop? Without customers, who's going to buy what the wealthy are selling? No rich guy ever opened up his tax bill and, after noticing he is paying 35% rather than 39% suddenly decided to create some jobs. If, on the other hand, there was a vibrant middle class armed with disposable income, opening a factory or shop would be a winning position.

Without a consumer demand, an innovator will open a factory and create a consumer demand. The rich guy opened up his tax bill and, after noticing that he was paying 35% rather than 39% realized that he had money to invest in a business that would create jobs. If what you say is true, communist Russia and communist China and even Cuba would be the most dynamic economies on the planet.

The mistake is in thinking that you can take from one class and give to another to create a dynamic economy but you can't. The more the government takes, and gives for nothing in return, the worse the economy gets.

How many iPads are sold in Uganda? There's no middle class there. No disposable income. Only the rich and the poor.

 

[Katzndogz]

Do you suppose that a 39% marginal tax rate is really such a threat to the Republic? What was the rate when last we enjoyed eight years of peace and prosperity under President Clinton? Was the economy able to grow under such a burdensome marginal rate?

The major problem with the modern American Conservative is they are not merely conservative but Radical. You guys don't just want to roll back government to before FDR, but to before Theodore Roosevelt. Economics has become draped in your spin as freedom. Sell it elsewhere to someone as gullible as a modern American Conservative. I don't see a 39% top marginal rate as a fire bomb against freedoms. I see it as a step toward economic fairness.

Under Clinton we had an expanding economy. That expanding economy was NOT caused by raising taxes. It was possible to raise taxes because of the dot com boom and an expanding economy. High taxes does NOT cause prosperity, just ask Japan how it works. High taxes can be tolerated in an expanding economy. Today we don't have an expanding economy. We have a contracting economy. We can't tolerate a raise in taxes. It will not merely slow the growth of expansion, it will cause a - wait for it - RECESSION.

There is no such thing as economic fairness. Not anymore than there is talent fairness or work ethic fairness. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive terms.

 

[Nosmo King]

Under Clinton we had an expanding economy. That expanding economy was NOT caused by raising taxes. It was possible to raise taxes because of the dot com boom and an expanding economy. High taxes does NOT cause prosperity, just ask Japan how it works. High taxes can be tolerated in an expanding economy. Today we don't have an expanding economy. We have a contracting economy. We can't tolerate a raise in taxes. It will not merely slow the growth of expansion, it will cause a - wait for it - RECESSION.

There is no such thing as economic fairness. Not anymore than there is talent fairness or work ethic fairness. Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive terms.

What would be more detrimental to the economy: raising the top marginal rate from 35%to 39% or

lowering middle class income and benefits by eliminating collective bargaining rights and workplace safety regulations?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What would be more detrimental to the economy: raising the top marginal rate from 35%to 39% or

lowering middle class income and benefits by eliminating collective bargaining rights and workplace safety regulations?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemingly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and prosperity instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy their system under all conditions."

Right?