Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local10 WPLG)   Economists predict Twinkies will survive bankruptcy, nuclear holocaust   (local10.com) divider line 71
    More: Spiffy, nuclear holocaust, ho ho, Hostess Brands, University of Michigan Law School, fire sales, economists, Teamsters, Flowers Foods  
•       •       •

2561 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 8:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-19 08:14:45 AM  
What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?
 
2012-11-19 08:24:22 AM  

Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?


They can put them in the same shoebox they keep their Facebook shares in?
 
2012-11-19 08:26:28 AM  
Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...
 
2012-11-19 08:27:44 AM  
There we go again. Out of all the Hostess products, Twinkies are the only ones anyone ever mentions.
 
2012-11-19 08:28:57 AM  

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


but when management screws its employees that's ok right?
 
2012-11-19 08:35:08 AM  
more importantly, can twinkies survive another string of ceo's with no experience in a relevant industry?
 
2012-11-19 08:36:00 AM  
Guess I shouldn't have bid $500.00 for that unopened box of Twinkies on Ebay.
 
2012-11-19 08:38:12 AM  

Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?


I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.
 
2012-11-19 08:40:07 AM  

jbhall3636: Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?

I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.


I can still eat them, but they aren't nearly as good as I remember them being 25 years ago.
 
2012-11-19 08:40:09 AM  

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.
 
2012-11-19 08:40:37 AM  
America in 2012. Employees not wanting their salary slashed by 50% while management votes themselves raises of 300% = greedy employees & benevolent management.
 
2012-11-19 08:41:12 AM  

ltdanman44: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


It boils down to who gets what from corporate profits. No unions, and employees are paid the minimum the market will allow, while executives typically have no reservations about giving themselves raises. Case in point here, the CEO got a 300% raise the year before the collapse. That just looks like executives, and not workers, trying to rape the company as it is dying.
 
2012-11-19 08:41:21 AM  

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


From the article about the person who works at Hostess - the offer management made:

1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.


The $3+ an hour was the pension benefit that the company "borrowed" against.

So yeah, totally the Union's fault. I mean, hey, taking a 27% pay cut over 5 years is totally ok, right?
 
2012-11-19 08:41:28 AM  
Quote from the article: "The company, weighed down by .... rising labor costs"

Bullshiat I say. Hostess severely cut the wages of their workers a few years ago, stole their pensions, and now wanted to enact another draconian cut. Good on the workers for saying NO.

Hostess is just trying to hide the fact that they were terribly mismanaged in the past decade, all while the execs got huge pay raises.
 
2012-11-19 08:41:55 AM  

jbhall3636: Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?

I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.


I think Twinkies are somewhat of a 'kid food.' I remember enjoying them quite a bit as a child. I imagine my love of them may have diminished over the years as I've aged.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:05 AM  
Thank God. I was worried American obesity rates would drop below 40%.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:26 AM  

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


Seriously. There have been quite a few times where I see how something went down and think "fark the unions." This is NOT one of those times. Management was farking them over but hard.

/Do not actually like Twinkies
//Do like those fruit pies though
 
2012-11-19 08:42:29 AM  

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


From my understanding it was a tad more complex then that. The company had been on a pretty serious downward trend for a while and the massive paycut the management was asking of the union would of only delayed the inevitable, perhaps not even by all that long.

If nothing else, it's important to remember that the union was not asking for a raise, the management was asking them to take a very significant cut to pay and benefits. This was after the union had agreed to concessions the last time the contract was up for negotiations.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:29 AM  

ltdanman44: but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


How does management screw its employees?

It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.

Any more responsibility than that is not on the employers nor should it be.
 
2012-11-19 08:43:27 AM  

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


I know it's a troll, but for everyone who is tempted to respond, read this rundown by mediamatters instead:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array - of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440

Long story short: Their last bankruptcy was poorly managed; execs took raises while asking workers to take cuts, unions had already taken salary and pension cuts; the brand would have lost money without pension obligations, those were the least of their debt issues.

/sorry, can't get fark to link direct, throws away URL because "web server didn't send a content-type header", whaaa???
 
2012-11-19 08:43:45 AM  

babymulch: more importantly, can twinkies survive another string of ceo's with no experience in a relevant industry?


CEO's will fail in any industry if they keep trying to cut costs willy-nilly, with no clue as to why they have those costs in the first place.

/There's an old adage, something about stitches or something. I dunno, thought it might be relevant.
 
2012-11-19 08:44:00 AM  

ltdanman44: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


Management acted heroically in this case. For 15 years, they worked diligently with the best minds on Wall Street to create value. Diligently, from dawn until dusk, searching every corner of every spreadsheet for every dollar they didn't think anyone would miss. Or at least anyone important would miss.
But in the end they were foiled by a bunch of greedy bakers.
 
2012-11-19 08:45:02 AM  

sodomizer: It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.


The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.
 
2012-11-19 08:47:31 AM  
sodomizer did you completely gloss over the fact that management was giving itself insanely large bonuses? Hell their ceo went from 750,000 to 2,5000,000 the same year he's in court trying to get the company to file for bankruptcy AND asking his workforce to take a 27% pay cut. That doesn't make a lick of sense. And you sit there and with a straight face ask how management screws it's employees? Pull your head out of your ass and maybe with those things called eyes you can figure it out.
 
2012-11-19 08:49:30 AM  

spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.


Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

You're talking about a few million there; how many millions does it take to pay the whole workforce that 8%?

And was the 8% above industry standard?

These are the questions you should ask, not some out of context comparison.

I would not want someone who thought in such a simplistic manner to run any company I'd work for.
 
2012-11-19 08:49:49 AM  

AgentPothead: sodomizer did you completely gloss over the fact that management was giving itself insanely large bonuses? Hell their ceo went from 750,000 to 2,5000,000 the same year he's in court trying to get the company to file for bankruptcy AND asking his workforce to take a 27% pay cut. That doesn't make a lick of sense. And you sit there and with a straight face ask how management screws it's employees? Pull your head out of your ass and maybe with those things called eyes you can figure it out.


Are you trying to have a serious talk with 'sodomizer?' I thought he/she was a troll?
 
2012-11-19 08:51:41 AM  

Cythraul: Are you trying to have a serious talk with 'sodomizer?' I thought he/she was a troll?


Srsly. And where's his tagline, the one about Liberals being scavengers of human misery or whatever?
 
2012-11-19 08:53:31 AM  
sodomizer pt 1 How does management screw its employees?

It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.



sodomizer pt 2 To attract a good employee, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

I'm not surprised s/he doesn't see the logical disconnect.
 
2012-11-19 08:54:46 AM  
I love that argument.

"Employees should just take what they get, but if you want to attract GOOD employees, you need to pay a competitive salary! Why don't the employees see that and be happy with the pay they get?"


Are you confused yet?
 
2012-11-19 08:55:14 AM  
sodomizer, I know it's just feeding you, but I have to ask...

Are you really saying that the CEO of Hostess was a good CEO? Because if not, then your comment about needing a competitive salary to attract a good CEO and upper management is wrong, and if you are you're applauding them for running the company into the ground with their management skills. Which is it?
 
2012-11-19 08:57:00 AM  
Nezu Chiza

Management should be happy with the pay they get!
 
2012-11-19 08:59:58 AM  

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


You dont understand, those are job creators you're talking about!

/dont make them angry, or they'll steal the sun from the sky
 
2012-11-19 09:01:26 AM  

Nezu Chiza: Are you really saying that the CEO of Hostess was a good CEO? Because if not, then your comment about needing a competitive salary to attract a good CEO and upper management is wrong


Not necessarily.

You need to pay a going rate for a qualified CEO, or you'll never get one. It's unclear whether the person in that position now is competent, but it's clear that if you refuse to pay that rate, there's zero pressure on that person to perform because no one else (who is competent) will take the job.
 
2012-11-19 09:02:07 AM  

Altman: The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.


Forming a union is not "leaving" it. Forming a union is demanding more money, bennies, etc. than you're worth.
 
2012-11-19 09:20:51 AM  
Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

i280.photobucket.com

That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.
 
2012-11-19 09:21:20 AM  
"The tasty cream disgusting grease-filled golden yellow-colored spongedustcakes are likely to survive turn you into a lardass by age 10"

FTFT
 
2012-11-19 09:22:00 AM  
Stashed on my property are sealed 55 gallon drums of supplies I'll need when push comes to shove. Two of them are Twinkies as they will be good for trade.
 
2012-11-19 09:33:31 AM  

sodomizer: spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

You're talking about a few million there; how many millions does it take to pay the whole workforce that 8%?

And was the 8% above industry standard?

These are the questions you should ask, not some out of context comparison.

I would not want someone who thought in such a simplistic manner to run any company I'd work for.


It's the principle of the whole thing - Bumping your own pay 3x while asking everyone else to do with less appears to be a heartless FARK YOU to your employees.

That fact that all CEOs, sports figures, entertainers and politicians (unless they are totally stupid) could forgo their compensation and still live comfortably for the rest of their lives, but they are TOO FARKIN' GREEDY.

1%, this is why people hate you and act greedy themselves. LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!
 
2012-11-19 09:34:47 AM  

ferretman: Wharrgharble UNIONS!


Did you have a nice weekend?
 
2012-11-19 09:40:28 AM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: It's the principle of the whole thing - Bumping your own pay 3x while asking everyone else to do with less appears to be a heartless FARK YOU to your employees.


Unionizing to demand more pay than the market allots is a giant FARK YOU to the whole company. Guess management doesn't look so bad.

On a practical level, if it were the first clash, I'd agree with you. I think however that bad faith was established here long ago.

These CEOs are nicer than I would have been. I would have either outsourced to China or invested in robotics, and fired all the workers (IIRC law prohibits me from firing only the union workers, or I'd do that).

But the point is well made that when you wonder why we manufacture almost nothing in the USA, it's because of unions. It's also worth noting that rarely are the unions more than a minority of the workers, and unions tend to go hand in hand with violence, organized crime and other methods of coercing the rest of the workers into joining the union shop.
 
2012-11-19 09:41:07 AM  
The road to Greece is paved with Twinkies.
 
2012-11-19 09:43:04 AM  

ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

[i280.photobucket.com image 850x637]

That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.


Moron, they weren't asking for more money.

Link
 
2012-11-19 09:47:38 AM  

ChaoticLimbs: Moron, they weren't asking for more money.


When you raise the pay past a reasonable point, you don't ask for more money. What you do is threaten to strike and play the victim if management demands reasonable wages.
 
2012-11-19 09:47:54 AM  

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


Where are you getting your numbers from? Got a link you can share?
 
2012-11-19 09:49:12 AM  

ChaoticLimbs: ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

[i280.photobucket.com image 850x637]

That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.

Moron, they weren't asking for more money.

Link


Yeah, I remember there being some rather draconian cuts to wages and benefits.
 
2012-11-19 09:52:52 AM  
Now I want a couple of boxes of ding dongs and ho hos. You never know what you have till it's gone.
 
2012-11-19 09:54:27 AM  

sodomizer: Altman: The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.

Forming a union is not "leaving" it. Forming a union is demanding more money, bennies, etc. than you're worth.


Unfortunately, I've seen SOME of this from unions, but it's not always true. The last major construction job I was on, you HAD to be union or you could not work there. At. All. Unless you were white collar, in which case you had to work 80-hour weeks and get paid peanuts. It was kind of shocking to learn that a laborer made more money than half the white-collar staff did. I know this because a lot of the union people CROWED about it.

Unions are supposed to be there to protect its members from the potential abuses of management. But, a lot of it seems self-serving at the detriment of people who don't want to belong to a union. Although, and I'll give them this credit, in the more specialized unions you had to have certain training and prerequisites (i.e., being a journeyman, or if an apprentice you had to work under a journeyman, etc).
 
2012-11-19 09:55:26 AM  

rezaxis: Now I want a couple of boxes of ding dongs and ho hos. You never know what you have till it's gone.


Funny Bones or go home.

/Good thing Drake's is still around
//...I think
 
2012-11-19 09:57:39 AM  

sodomizer: Unionizing to demand more pay than the market allots is a giant FARK YOU to the whole company.


I know what you mean. The way they used their secret union mind control device to make the company agree to their contract terms is pretty scary. It's such a shame that the company is forced to agree to their horrible demands rather than say "no, thanks, your demands for this contract are too great" and hire replacement workers

sodomizer: But the point is well made that when you wonder why we manufacture almost nothing in the USA, it's because of unions.


I know. We would all be much better off if manufacturers could simply hire Americans for the slave wages they pay oversees workers.
 
2012-11-19 09:59:43 AM  

ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.


Hey, look everyone! Someone who's jealous of someone who makes $16/hr! 

Keep blaming the workers, and soon you'll be jealous of someone who makes $12/hr!
 
2012-11-19 10:04:40 AM  
Yes....this person should be paid more than $16.00/hr for their job:

i280.photobucket.com

Most union employees are overpaid for the actual job they do. When I was in a Union (min wage was $5.25/hr) I was making $10.25/hr...as a cashier at a supermarket...completely overpaid for the job but since I was in a Union I received regular pay raises. All the company could do was cut my hours.
 
2012-11-19 10:04:55 AM  

sodomizer: ChaoticLimbs: Moron, they weren't asking for more money.

When you raise the pay past a reasonable point, you don't ask for more money. What you do is threaten to strike and play the victim if management demands reasonable wages.


How can a union raise pay beyond a "reasonable point"? Doesn't management have to approve contracts? Isn't the negotiation simply a game between two bargainers, one that provides labor and one that needs labor? Are you saying that management is too stupid to bargain?
It's true, history is full of examples of companies that negotiated labor contracts, and then farked up and found themselves in a bind. Contracts are negotiated based on assumed revenues, and that's true for both sides. Both sides assume the output of the labor has a certain value. When GM fell below 30% of the domestic market, they could no longer afford certain obligations. But whose fault was that? Shouldn't management, who are the ones responsible for meeting those revenue targets, be the first to get wacked? If they were the first to get wacked, there would be a lot less animosity. Instead, it's "Oops. I really farked up the brand. Sucks to be a worker!"
 
2012-11-19 10:15:26 AM  
Defend unions all you want, I'm sure all the workers with no jobs right before Christmas will...
 
2012-11-19 10:41:05 AM  

sodomizer: spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

You're talking about a few million there; how many millions does it take to pay the whole workforce that 8%?

And was the 8% above industry standard?

These are the questions you should ask, not some out of context comparison.

I would not want someone who thought in such a simplistic manner to run any company I'd work for.


Doesn't matter - if you're asking your workforce to cut back, you don't double your salary - you just *don't* - not unless you want to risk something exactly like this.

In the grand scheme of things, does the upper management salary 'matter' to the bottom line? In this case, yes - because they were the straw that broke the camel's back, and caused the workforce to revolt.

So instead of giving *themselves* an 8% cut in the interest of keeping the company going, the board decided to 'rebalance' their salary away from performance incentives they couldn't collect in bankruptcy to straight cash - and basically told thier workforce to suck it up.

I was very much in the "you dummies" camp when I heard about the union workers shooting themselves in the foot this way, but I think the onus is on the board - they chose to prioritize themselves over the company, and ultimately everyone lost out.

Countervailing example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4761136.html

You want to maximize your personal income at the expense of the company? Don't be surpised if the workers follow your 'leadership'
 
2012-11-19 10:42:54 AM  
Who's right when everybody's wrong?
 
2012-11-19 10:43:14 AM  

xanadian:
/Good thing Drake's is still around
//...I think


http://www.hostessbrands.com/brands/drakes.aspx

Does that answer your question? ;)
 
2012-11-19 10:55:35 AM  

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


Did the company file for bankruptcy? Is that exactly what they said they would do in response to a prolonged strike? Did 5,000 people hold hostage the jobs of 13,500 other employees?

The answer to all of those questions is "Yes." I think it is you who looks stupid--after all, management gets to dictate whether you have a job to go to, not the union.
 
2012-11-19 11:09:28 AM  

Nezu Chiza: sodomizer, I know it's just feeding you, but I have to ask...

Are you really saying that the CEO of Hostess was a good CEO? Because if not, then your comment about needing a competitive salary to attract a good CEO and upper management is wrong, and if you are you're applauding them for running the company into the ground with their management skills. Which is it?


Sometimes keeping a company afloat is not in the best interest of the shareholders (i.e. the people to whom upper management has a fiduciary responsibility. If liquidating the company netted a greater return than keeping the business going with the strike and money issues, then hell yeah he was a good CEO.
 
2012-11-19 11:42:30 AM  

stratagos: xanadian:
/Good thing Drake's is still around
//...I think

http://www.hostessbrands.com/brands/drakes.aspx

Does that answer your question? ;)


:(
 
2012-11-19 12:02:20 PM  

ferretman: Yes....this person should be paid more than $16.00/hr for their job:

[i280.photobucket.com image 850x637]

Most union employees are overpaid for the actual job they do. When I was in a Union (min wage was $5.25/hr) I was making $10.25/hr...as a cashier at a supermarket...completely overpaid for the job but since I was in a Union I received regular pay raises. All the company could do was cut my hours.


since you feel you were overpaid, you obviously gave them the excess back, right?
 
2012-11-19 12:08:08 PM  

ltdanman44: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


The union stopped the production. They need to get back to work so they could stay in business. The union said screw you and they folded. You're a union apologist and cannot be reasoned with.
 
2012-11-19 12:11:26 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: It's such a shame that the company is forced to agree to their horrible demands rather than say "no, thanks, your demands for this contract are too great" and hire replacement workers


Isn't that illegal?
 
2012-11-19 02:37:29 PM  

AgentPothead: sodomizer did you completely gloss over the fact that management was giving itself insanely large bonuses? Hell their ceo went from 750,000 to 2,5000,000 the same year he's in court trying to get the company to file for bankruptcy AND asking his workforce to take a 27% pay cut. That doesn't make a lick of sense. And you sit there and with a straight face ask how management screws it's employees? Pull your head out of your ass and maybe with those things called eyes you can figure it out.


I just hit the "ignore" button and his posts don't upset me anymore
 
2012-11-19 02:53:33 PM  
I think a lot of anti-union people are missing the point of what is happening to Hostess. The company's sales have been dropping for a long time for a number of reasons. The two most important is that the snack food industry is glutted with choices; Hostess has too much competition. Secondly, people really are beginning to make healthier snack choices and Hostess has nothing to offer. Because of this, they have been losing ground for quite some time now. With or without union contract considerations, they are bankrupt and cannot go on. The union DID NOT cause this business failure, not even Hostess says so. They cannot afford to negotiate with the union.
 
2012-11-19 04:33:20 PM  
like no one wanted Twinkies before.
now that they're no longer making them, EVERYONE wants twinkles
 
2012-11-19 04:36:53 PM  
Hostess: For those who have yet to discover Tastykake.
 
2012-11-19 06:57:19 PM  
HOSTESS CHERRY PIE CIRCA 1976 FTW!!!!!!
 
2012-11-19 08:32:46 PM  

BoxOfBees: Hostess: For those who have yet to discover Tastykake.


In fairness, some of those poor souls don't have access to Tastykake. Poor bastards.



/Butterscotch Krimpets are the BEST
//No one else makes anything like them
///Spice Cake Krimpets are also awesome.
 
2012-11-19 11:25:59 PM  

sodomizer: spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.


Nothing says "good CEO" like multiple bankruptcies.

As Warren Buffet notes, executive compensation IS often linked to a firm's performance...inversely.
 
2012-11-20 01:30:15 AM  
First Buckyballs, now Twinkies!!! What is this world coming to?????

/first world problems
 
2012-11-20 02:35:53 AM  
i249.photobucket.com

i249.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report