Cookaholics Bulletin Board
https://cookaholics.org/

Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
https://cookaholics.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2680		 Page 5 of 7
Author:  Lindsay [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
I have to agree with Frank -- both are at fault. The management for not figuring out how to change with the times. But the labor unions sure didn't help --among other things they required the company to keep two sets of employees to unload different products (the same truck could not deliver Ding Dongs and Hostess Cupcakes to the same store; they had to have two different trucks do it and two different groups of employees load and unload the trucks). Capitalism may be a heartless bitch at times, but as every other economic system tried to date has failed, it's shown it's still the best at working with human instincts. The key is to keep a balance and, in this case, both sides were equally out of balance.
Author:  jim262 [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
I never thought much about unions and probably even cheered when President Reagan decertified and busted PATCO. Since then, union membership and power has been in an incredible downward spiral. At the same time the division of wealth in this country has become increasingly lopsided to the point where there are statistics floating around that the top 400 own more wealth than the bottom 185 million Americans.

Not much has really changed in the past few hundred years. Wealth was concentrated in the hands of the landed gentry and the masses had little choice but to work on the estate for the going rate.

In the face-off between stockholders, boards of directors, management, and workers it is amazing how frequently unions face blame and they do not even have an official hand in running a company. They are, however, a convenient scapegoat.

I have not read my way through all of the articles related to the great Twinkie scandal of 2012, but I am willing to bet a pack of Twinkies that it became clear some time earlier this year that the company was worth more dead than alive. At that point, I suspect that company was not bargaining in good faith as it moved toward its preconceived end.
Author:  Da Bull Man [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Lindsay wrote:
I have to agree with Frank -- both are at fault. The management for not figuring out how to change with the times. But the labor unions sure didn't help --among other things they required the company to keep two sets of employees to unload different products (the same truck could not deliver Ding Dongs and Hostess Cupcakes to the same store; they had to have two different trucks do it and two different groups of employees load and unload the trucks). Capitalism may be a heartless bitch at times, but as every other economic system tried to date has failed, it's shown it's still the best at working with human instincts. The key is to keep a balance and, in this case, both sides were equally out of balance.


Again...are we talking about Twinkies or Congress?? ;) Welcome to part two...the saga continues...
As long as the working middle class are not the voting majority the Country is pretty much screwed...not that I have an opinion or anything...wait!!!!

Did Jim & I just agree on something? :shock: I feel a hug coming on! :lol:


Edit to add perspective:

If you add all the bonuses detailed above by Darcie and divide that by the hourly / yearly wage of the 18K employees on the high side they come to about 21cents an hour, on the low side it is about 10.3 cents per hour for an average of about 15.7 cents per hour.

Not taking sides, just pointing out the math of this fiasco.
Author:  jim262 [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Agree? Surely you jest. I appears to me that the the company was murdered in August, in the boardroom, when the inept management and the board of directors decided to carve up the company because they did not have the slightest idea how the fix the company and return it to profitability. They had long since lost the trust of "THE UNION". The company had no intention of negotiating in good faith.

It is easy to point to seemingly ridiculous work rules that are hampering a company and fix blame equally, but every one of those rules and the pension benefits that are complained about were agreed to by representatives of the company during collective bargaining. Unions do not create anything in a vacuum, and workers may be paying the price today of agreements management made thirty years ago, but they were and are management decisions and not union decisions.
Author:  Da Bull Man [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Below quote edited to add perspective:


Unions and / or Management seldom create anything in a vacuum, and workers may be paying the price today of agreements labor demanded and managment agreed to thirty years ago, but they were and are labor demands agreed to by management and not union or management decisions alone.

Again...they are both boneheads...but you gotta ask...who needs a job right now?

Ahhhh...and the world is back where it should be... :twisted:
Author:  Da Bull Man [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Lindsay,

Imagine the poor children telling thier schoolmates My daddy delivers Ding Dongs for a living...My daddies truck is filled with Ho Ho's. :lol:
Author:  Darcie [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
I don't think we can lay the blame equally - dumb union demands may have played a part, but I don't think an equal share.

92% of the baker's union members decided they would rather try to find a job elsewhere...because while they could not replace the jobs they had, they felt they could replace the jobs they were going to get under the new agreement. It's rare to see that high of a percentage in any election, so they were pretty well convinced of their argument.

Something tells me they probably would have relented on the two trucks thing to avoid a 30% pay cut. But maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't privy to the negotiations.
Author:  Da Bull Man [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Darcie wrote:
I don't think we can lay the blame equally - dumb union demands may have played a part, but I don't think an equal share.



Completely agree...few things in life are "equal" negotiations usually fall to the side possessing the greatest strength at the time...just the way it works...good faith be damned...

This appears to have had a win / lose/ draw option. As is turned out Management won, labor lost, recipes will be sold, another company will be in the business of supplying Ding Dongs, Ho Ho's, and Twinkies in the future and life will return to a new state of "normal" whatever that might be...and the capitalist wheel keeps grinding away...I'm really OK with that.
Author:  Paul Kierstead [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Well, this is not exactly capitalism, now is it. When a company liquidates, the list of people who are paid, and in what order, are very much a matter of law, i.e. controlled and set by the government. It is not a 'fair' system based on efficiency and supply/demand, etc at that point. This list is very much a determining factor in what decision a company like Hostess is likely to take (or have forced on them). If, for example, the employee's pension fun was the highest priority creditor, do you think management (and other creditors) would be so anxious to push it into receivership? You can agree or disagree that the list is in the correct order, or that a companies legal obligations are set correctly, but these things are most definitely set by society and the government, not commercial competition. In fact Hostess was profitable and it appears debt was doing them in. The legal framework for corporations currently means the creditors (and the employees are not high enough to be considered real creditors here) get more value by liquidating the brand. That was not set by the market, that was set by government.
Author:  Darcie [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Hostess to Close--No more Twinkies and HoHos.
Paul, I agree. The bankruptcy code revisions in 2005 didn't do much for anyone but a handful of creditors. Employee wages are high on the list of creditors, but pension plans not so much. There is a lot that depends on the particular bankruptcy judge, too. One of the many reasons large companies incorporate in Delaware is because the Delaware District of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is used to large corporate bankruptcy filings and large creditors definitely have an advantage there. The "common man" hardly stands a chance in that district; the judges are pretty creditor friendly (I worked for a debtor-friendly bankruptcy judge...they are few and far between).

But now the real question: did anyone buy Twinkies to resell on ebay in 15 years as "Vintage"?
Page 5 of 7 All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/