***************** UPDATE ***************** I was talking with a coworker just now. Her husband works for a close competitor of Hostess. They are going to step up and increase their similar product lines by 400% immediately. However, as they don't want to happen to them what the union did to Hostess, they will not add a single person. It will all be done via automation and with the same people they already have. They will be buying some equipment from a company that was contracted to make Hostess stuff as they have to also shut down and lay off their employees.
You're not being kind to Zags. He's just the pawn in the whole scheme of things. He just does what he's told by the powers-that-be. Safe, secure, and seduced.
If you believe that I've got some beautiful riverfront property in Christmas Valley you might be interested in.
Hmmm. Liberals are always being accused of "class warfare". What's it called when conservatives do it? The left wants higher taxes on the rich; the right wants to cut wages for the people who actually work for a living. And people wonder why I find the left the lesser of evils.
The unions are killing the golden goose in this case. They can have all the "wages" they want from a defunct company. They seem satisfied with that.
I do not see where you get that from As someone who just took a pay cut due to a business restructuring to survive.. I am far from super cool and groovy on wage cuts. If I did not have a long trem agenda, I could be just like those guys..out on my ass. The company was in its seconed BK restructure, needed 8 percent back from the union to update and survive..union said no, company cant go on with all the factors thay were going to have to face..hgher taxes, obama care and no reliefe to update..where is the ownership the bad guy/
Correction. The Left want to violate property rights by taxing more and more of your property. They want to violate right of contract by forcing unions on unwilling participants. Many on the Right just want their rights back.
Man some of you communists need to stop vilifying job creators. They do that on their own just fine: http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-ceo-salary.html
What goes unnoticed is that the 6,000 odd union employees helped to put a firm of 18,000 over the edge. Management certainly shares some blame, but right now one employee killed the jobs of three.
So, my (serious) question is, isn't it in the better interest of the company for the management to concede to the union's wishes and take a pay cut instead of pocketing millions of dollars as they fold their company? I mean, it just seems petty. But maybe I don't understand how this stuff works.
Likely it's a choice between lowering labor costs or operating at a structural loss, which in the business world really isn't a choice at all.
So would a union actually make a demand of the company they work for that would cause that company to fold, like what we're supposed to believe happened at Hostess? Also please explain what "operating at a structural loss" means.
Twinkies will return. http://www.cnbc.com/id/49878304 Snoballs were sweeter and more popular with us kids. Grownups bought the cupcakes and Wonder Bread. Dingdongs were invented too late for me. That left Twinkies as the barely-sweet ugly duckling, so they sold the least. Starting in the 80s, comedians noted how useless Twinkies are, and kept saying the name, so now a new generation thinks that they were Hostess's main product. Just like they think "Leave it to Beaver" was the main family comedy, because of comedians beginning in the 70s. It wasn't even in the top 5. "Father Knows Best" was #1. Revisionist history.
Sure. It happens all the time. Why do you think GM and Chrysler went down the toilet? Labor costs. They started off $1,700-$2,400 behind other carmakers before they pressed the first metal. As a result, they had to cut corners to make up the difference. It's why American car manufacturers have such cheap feeling interiors. And "operating at a structural loss" means that the market price of the product you produce is less than the inputs required to manufacture it. Solyndra is a wonderful example.
By the way, the Twinkie isn't dead. Someone will pay Hostess' creditors the rights to the name(s) and one or more of the product recipes.
In fact, I have one of the valuable Twinkies in my house and will auction it off. Anyway, my article above says the causes were fourfold. This is their 3rd bankruptcy. I think they had to do it for the 4 reasons, so they timed it for when the labor contract was up, to make the union the scapegoat to shareholders, instead of management.
