17 Nov 2012 admin In G+ Posts

Unions.. I would be pretty pissed if my Union dues had paid for the end of my job… I submit the following alternative for everyone that cannot live without Hostess or Deep fried Twinkies…..

Hostess Brands is Closed

We are sorry to announce that Hostess Brands, Inc. has been forced by a Bakers Union strike to shut down all operations and sell all company assets. For more information, go to hostessbrands.info. Thank you for all of your loyalty and support over the years.

Comments: 90

  1. Richard Ball 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    I would be too, but, fortunately the union actions had nothing to do with the death spiral Hostess was in.

  2. Brent Burzycki 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Richard Ball it certainley contributed… might have gone out of busienss anyway but no workers = no production and no money….

  3. Richard Ball 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    Hostess has been ignored by retail outlets since 2004. They've been hanging on by a thread and the outcome has not been in doubt for a very long time. 

  4. Olav Folland 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    Hostess/Wonder has been in deep trouble for a few years now, but this was the final nail.

    I love that wanting more money from a bankrupt company is more important than having a job at all to some.

  5. Brent Burzycki 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Olav Folland amen brother….. something wrong with that thinking….

  6. Richard Ball 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    Yep. Blood from stones does not come and if you can't make a living on the wage paid it is time to move on. I'm sorry for the older workers (both union and non) that get dumped on the street but Hostess was dead and just hadn't held the wake.

  7. Bill Kraski 17 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Olav Folland , my thoughts, too.  Because of changing buying habits, the non-nutritious range of Hostess products wasn't selling well.  I can see the union members wanting fair compensation, but bad pay can be better than no pay.  Especially, when it might have prevented 18,500 people being dumped on the job market all at once.

  8. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Bill Kraski  and as I commented to my wife yesterday – "You just came off a line making fucking Twinkies.  What are you going to do now?"

    Also, ironically, I bought my first loaf of Wonder Bread since I don't know when recently.  They'd come out with a version that was exactly what I remembered, but didn't use HFCS.

  9. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Actually, they were looking at a 2yr restructure. They would have come out fine.

    The Baker's Union was greedy and wanted the money the Teamsters gave up.

    Rumor has it, whole communities/Teamsters are rather upset at the union where the jobs were lost. I wouldn't be surprised if a little urban justice might be making news.

  10. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Oh, I also saw a news bit with the VP of the Baker's Union. He basically said he was sorry all those people lost their jobs, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. He stated that they had to take a risk for the good of their people. He blamed the company also…

    What a douche.

  11. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    They were restructuring financially but no stores wanted their products. The heads of the big grocery chains were no longer interested in wasting shelf space on them (no innovation, changing taste and eating habits) and the margins in the retail grocery business are too thin to support marginal companies/products.

  12. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Where do you get that no stores wanted their product?

    It's everywhere. I haven't been in a store yet, except whole foods and trader Joe's that didn't carry Hostess.

    You're making gross allegations.

  13. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Newspaper interviews with grocery-store buyers. Just because something with a long shelf-life like Hostess products is there doesn't mean the store buyer is happy with either turn-over or delivery times.

  14. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    there was in interview on the radio with a branding specialist and he reiterated the feeling in the industry about their lack of innovation and adaptability.

  15. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Well, I've never seen any newspaper interviews that said that. And it flies in the face of reality that what you state isn't what actuality is…

  16. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Yes, so basically we have what you say as fact because someone on some radio station said something like some newspaper somewhere interviewed someone who said something.

  17. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    No, you don't have to take my word for it. A little bit of hunting in the news from 2004 to now will reveal all you need to know.

  18. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Richard Ball you can't even post one article from a legitimate news source for her?

  19. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    2004 was how many years ago?

    And thus exactly how relevant?

  20. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Sure Olav.

    Go to Forbes or the WSJ and read the current stories. They'll give you the basics, the first bankruptcy was in 2004 which is why it is very relevant. Have a look at the financial mess they've been in since with labour troubles and mismanagement on the corporate side. It is all pretty plain.

  21. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply


  22. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Ok, just let me get this straight…

    8 years ago, in a Texas far, far away… A lone Twinkie was up against a nameless, faceless Branding Specialist and his Supermarket CEO Corporate Forces. Aided by the Gluten Rebels, Twinkie The Kid set out on a quest to save his shelf space…

    Yes, it's very relevant. About as relevant in business years as a dead cat to a mouse.

  23. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    As an attitude to investment research that approach leaves a lot to be desired.

  24. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    That's an OpEd piece. The author had had to amend once already after comments corrected him. He also doesn't state that the raises were reversed in April and that the top execs were being paid only $1 per hour since. He also doesn't state that the Teamsters held an independent audit that showed them everything, which is why they took the deal. They begged the Baker's union to cease the strike. The union refused to let a secret vote to their members go forward.

    Their members didn't have a say. The strike continued and the union VP shrugged and walked away from the members that no longer had work to go back to.

  25. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    See, was that so hard to provide a link?

    Unfortunately, it's an op-ed piece, but I'm willing to forget that for a moment.  Asserted in the article are: Hostess has filed for bankruptcy twice.  Hostess' upper-management got a couple of raises.  The Union refused to accept a new contract with a company that was barely holding on.  18K people are now out of work.  Implied are shedding un-mentioned "valuable assets".  Anecdotal is some lady's husband buys 'forbidden fruits' for his kids after they spent the night at some horrifically PC house.

    What's missing are numbers, facts, data points, and particularly anything referring to how no stores want to carry Hostess products, even though they all do.

  26. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    God, that made me hot, +Olav Folland … Instant circle for you!

  27. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Azure Mallone I think that's the best comment I've seen since G+ started, at least 🙂

    And, mutual 🙂

  28. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    There is also no reason they could not rethink the brands but you need money to do that.. Or take all that production hardware and make it do different jobs… Lack of creative thinking from companies and lack of concessions from greedy unions and employees is a huge issue in our society….

  29. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Azure Malone olav makes us all hot… We just do not tell him or else his head will fit out his front door…. 🙂

  30. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Best GMTA moment on /g+/ too. 🙂

  31. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki all of it takes money.  If a buyer bought all the assets (not just the trademarks) and injected enough capital it might be possible.  The difficulty is that they'd likely face the same union problems.

    Manufacturing equipment isn't transferable though.  90% of the time it's designed for a very specific purpose, and can't do a different task.  (the company I work for sells OEM to equipment manufacturers, among other things)

  32. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    I want a twinkie machine in my garage… I have see many old brands re emerge for speciality shopping outlets… I assume those brands are being purchased and assets like special machines are bought and then run in short runs…

  33. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    There are recipes on the internet.  I was thinking about working out the perfect Twinkie some time soon 😀

    But yeah, likely is someone that wants into that market sector will buy the 'brand' (trademarks and recipes).  

  34. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Any time +Sherrie von Sternberg 🙂

  35. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    The employees should launch a kick starter to save the twinkie…… 🙂

  36. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki except they are the one's that didn't like the Twinkie in the first place 😛

  37. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Good point…. People can be dumb

  38. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Unfortunately, all too true.

  39. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Cheap shot +Olav Folland. I mentioned WSJ and Forbes as places where with a little effort anyone could get some background (and a business-friendly slant at that). You asked for a direct link and I gave you a direct one to a Forbes article and you come back with a snide "was that so hard" as if I was somehow trying to obfuscate matters.

    The facts are not in dispute as any real research will tell you. Call up the spokesmen for Weis Markets or Giant Foods. talk to industry analysts like D.A Davidson about the Hostess brand and its penetration into the supermarket business.

    Hostess has been on life-support since 2004 and absent a buyer really interested in making it a viable business (rather than restructuring it for the benefit of the management company(ies)) was headed for the end we've seen regardless of what the unions did or didn't do.

    Did they help? Most assuredly not. Did they cause the problem on their own, also most assuredly not.

  40. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    I never said that they caused the problem – at least not directly.  I have never denied that Hostess/Wonder hasn't been in trouble for some time.  They laid off several hundred people in town here just this summer, even.   But. if you go back to my original post +Richard Ball you'll find that I said that union greed put the nail in the coffin for Hostess.  Look also at the other facts that have been brought up – the Teamsters (of all people) agreed that the company was on track to potentially become profitable again.  The company tried in good faith to try and work out something with it's employees that would keep their doors open.

    But, I can't call the people that you mention and expect to get more than voicemail and you know it.  Back your shit up with facts – and links to real articles – or shut the fuck up.

  41. Peter Martyn 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    The actions of the Baker's Union national leadership tends to reinforce my feeling that the National Leadership of any Union never has the best interests of the members/workers of Local Union Chapters at heart. The only concern that the national leadership of any union has is what they feel is in the best interests of that's unions national position. Even if that position is detrimental to the well being of a local chapter.

    I realize that this is a generalization, but I feel that the national leadership of unions look at the local chapters as just pawns on a chess board in the bigger game that they play. We all know what happens to pawns, they get sacrificed.

    Local union chapters should always keep that in mind.

    Just to clarify, I am not claiming that the Baker's Union decision is the sole reason Hostess went out of business. Plenty of other mistakes were made by other parties earlier in this saga, they just played a critical role at the end.

  42. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    That's what research is +Olav Folland, looking stuff up and calling people and following one piece to another. The names I mentioned are "spokesmen" it is their job to provide info to people who ask. If you don't want to ask then use google. If you don't want to do that then keep your insults to yourself. This thread was a simple exchange of information until you and Azure thought it was funner to pretend that views other than your own had no validity.

    If you are incapable of having a grown-up discussion with the "shut the fuck up" attitude fine. Go back and look at what I said and and compare it with the facts in the reporting of the history of Hostess. This latest hassle with the Baker's union did not cause Hostess to go under it was just the latest event in the demise of the company.

    Are our positions that far apart that "shut the fuck up" is appropriate?

  43. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Peter Martyn yes. Many unions have devolved into political power bases with no real interest in their membership (except as a source of money).

  44. Roger Baillie 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    The national leadership of the union has nothing to do with this the workers decide whether to accept the contract or not accept it!

  45. Olav Folland 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Richard Ball it's apparent to me that you don't want to support your own arguments – I think we might agree on some things, but your broader assertions are questionable.

    Have a good day.

  46. Peter Martyn 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    If only that were the case. It really is surprising how often you will find officers and staff from the national union offices directly involved with the negotiations that take place between local chapters and the companies the members of the local chapter work for.

    The question I would ask is why are they directly involved?

    The stated or commonly accepted reason is that they are providing professional support and services that the local chapter cannot do for themselves. While that statement can be and generally is true, the more insidious reason they are there in person is to guide the negotiations and make sure that the local chapter doesn't stray from the chosen path of the national union. The national unions could care less about a single company or the members of a local chapter that work for that company. In the long run all they care about is the control and influence they have over the service or industry they organize and represent.

  47. Richard Ball 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    You too +Olav Folland 

  48. Brent Burzycki 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Well as a previous Union member.. all they did was take my money and get me nothing in return. I know that is not the case all the time but it sure was for me…

    I was a monthly check…and that is all..

  49. Roger Baillie 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    That is exactly right they are involved at the national level not the local level!

  50. Roger Baillie 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    An example would be they work to change laws to make things better for you and me.

  51. Peter Martyn 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +chris burzycki oh please… "a war on American workers by the less fortunate". What an incredibly inane comment.

    The only reason this is news is because Hostess sold name recognizable products. Companies go out of business ever day because management and workers screwed the pooch. Which is exactly what happened here. Neither management or the unionized workforce were willing or able to make needed changes in the past that would ensure the survival of the company going forward. Hostess might have been able to survive going forward, but to do so their whole cost structure needed to change because the current cost structure was based upon sales volumes that Hostess no longer has. The worst business model a company can have is to go from one that has historically been a growth in sales model to one that is slowing or a constricting sales model.

    What we have here at this point in time is a critique of the Bakers Union because they just happened to be proverbial final straw that broke the camels back that sent Hostess as we know it into the history books.

    If there was any war on the American workers, it was made by you and I as we as a whole were no longer buying Hostess products in quantities that would support the costs that Hostess had as a business.

  52. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Roger Baillie – You're wrong. The laws backed by unions do not make things better for non-union citizens. In fact, work increases and becomes more political in the workplace when union shop stewards are involved. Also, the seniority system impacts younger workers financially, forcing many to accept multiple jobs when more senior union members take their shifts.

    You're not telling the whole story unless you've read the red book.

  53. Azure Mallone 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    I remember an instance when union became involved in an issue. Their solution was to threaten to strike unless the workload was distributed across more individuals. So when they got that, the workload was reduced and the union didn't increase their allocation to fill the new jobs, so the same number of employees did the job slower… And thus the work was distributed across time, meeting the contract that more workers do the job.

    Worse, because it slowed operations, and non-union workers cannot do the job assigned to union workers, production dipped by a significant percentage while cost of operations increased.

    Sounds just like what happened to Hostess.

  54. Roger Baillie 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Azure Mallone Laws backed by unions do make things better For union workers and non-union workers. Here are some things that unions helped pass to make things better for you and I.


  55. Zack Davis 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Roger Baillie There's a few things wrong with that list as a whole actually…

    Weekends AND the 40 hour work week… seriously? — The 40 hour, 5 day work week was actually standardized by Henry Ford because of his innovations with the assembly line. Unions didn't create it, they didn't create the innovation that made it even possible (they may have fought other workplaces that were slow to adopt it but they are not the reason for it).

    There's really a majority of the list to dissect that I don't wish to spend/waste the time debunking. There's actually little the "unions" have directly created… it's funny because that list easily spans nearly the entire life of the country. Some how unions get responsibility for creation of regulations that came about because of disasters? I love the ADA and Civil Rights part too, as if it was only unions wanting that too. 

    The list is funny because it might be 36 things "supported" by unions (all with varying degrees of success) but they are not 36 things to THANK the unions for creating on their own. 

  56. Roger Baillie 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Nobody said that unions created these laws. The unions Fault to get these laws passed.

  57. Zack Davis 18 Nov 2012 Reply

    Exactly why would people need to be thankful for unions about them? The union was simply lobbying in favor of standards and laws that were already fairly well supported. To say they're a reason to be pro-union would be like saying they're reasons to be pro-yourself. 

    There's an equal number of times when unions (like at hostess) have done more to hurt and hinder the businesses they worked for and stifle innovation than they do to help it. They even create monopolies for themselves as in the case of teachers unions that protect bad teachers, prevent change and by doing so harm education. 

    I'm not saying unions historically have been horrible, but they have their place and their purpose and their place and purpose is shrinking. We're not back in 1886 when if Carnegie wanted to increase profits he would just decrease worker pay and increase their hours. 

  58. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    "The company declared bankruptcy eight years ago, forcing the employees to make concessions to keep their jobs. The CEO promised to use the money to modernize… Since then, the CEO's pay was raised "from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000". Other executives also received massive increases." – via +Michael Goodness (http://goo.gl/iGfwz)

  59. Brent Burzycki 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    If I was making that as a ceo… I would have bought the equipment myself and started over with my employees

  60. Roger Baillie 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Zack Davis you are not giving the unions enough credit for getting these bills and laws passed. Unions are not just lobbyist. Unions have members that vote. Over 14 million. That is a lot of votes . When unions tell a politician they will do their best to give him 14 million votes if he or she will pass their bills or laws well you see the results. That list of 36 things that you and me can be thankful for.

  61. Azure Mallone 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    The Union didn't get those laws passed. Where they and the voting public agreed as to vote for the laws is how they passed.

    And in a previous post you just contradicted. You said the unions didn't create the laws, therefore they do not deserve the credit.

    Secondly, the point here is that I believe +Roger Baillie is Schilling for the Union. He hasn't produced an alternate viewpoint to meter his stance on. This is unlike what +Zack Davis has done. So I don't think Roger has the desire to look past what he's shoveling.

  62. Olav Folland 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Roger Baillie you do, of course, realize that the bulk of the union power is that they can take money from people that are forced to pay into their game, and spend that money to lobby the state and federal governments for things that benefit the unions – regardless of whether or not it benefits the members or even if the members want to have their hard-earned dollars spent on such lobbying.

  63. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    Not even true +Olav Folland 

  64. Olav Folland 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Brent Burzycki the personnel buyout model has worked well in a number of cases – Harley-Davidson for example.  In  this case I fear it would work as well as Saturn though;  

  65. Olav Folland 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi several of my friends have been union members – by force, because they want a job – and that has exactly been their experience.  Please, feel free to disprove me.

  66. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    But if I were a small business owner I would be very pissed that the US Chamber of Commerce fought against a single-pay national health care system (like most countries have) on the grounds that "health insurance has traditionally been connected to employment" — just to keep the private insurance thugs in business… when we all know the only way to bring costs down for small business is to go to a single-pay system.

  67. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    Of course, the union has made it more than clear now that this Hostess closing has just about nothing to do with union decisions and everything to do with loading up the company with debt, stripping the assets away, including pension funds — typical vulture capitalism! 

    The company declared bankruptcy eight years ago, forcing the employees to make concessions to keep their jobs. The CEO promised to use the money to modernize… broken promise. Workers asked to do more with fewer workers, under worsening conditions. Then asked to give up their pensions. Since then, the CEO's pay was raised "from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000". Other executives also received massive increases.  

  68. Brent Burzycki 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi nice that technically the Union is one of those debts.. but many in todays society simply never look in a mirror… I hand out mirrors to those people at christmas…and they still do not get it…

  69. Zack Davis 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi Wait you're angry that the unions tied healthcare to employment and now you're mad because it won't untie? You also have a very wrong view of healthcare, you don't need a single payer system if we built a system that didn't require insurance in the first place. Until it was tied to the job, people could afford things like doctors visits because they weren't $250 for a 30 minute check-up. 

    As to your vulture capitalism and "worsening working conditions"… aww you mean they had to actually work harder like someone not in a union job? 

  70. Olav Folland 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    The larger concern is that the Teamsters – arguably one of the most f*cked up unions in the country – looked at Hostess' recovery plan and decided that it was worth taking a pay cut, because they felt that it would lead to profitability.  Indeed, they even begged the baker's union to take the deal.

    Meanwhile, when confronted with the loss of 18,500 jobs, the VP of the baker's union just shrugged.

  71. Azure Mallone 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi also changed get argument. A clear sign of conceding.

    Also, she speaks of small business owners upset about nationalized healthcare, when those same small business owners argued against it. The cost to the small business owners will raise process and undermine competition.

    I agree that small business owners need to provide coverage to their employees, but let's face reality that we as an at will work environment, have a choice in who we work for.

    In a Union, you do not have such a luxury.

    Note: I actually do like the Teamsters.

  72. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    Right now the way big companies are stacking the deck against workers – especially in "right to work states" like Florida goes something like this: Workers are hired "part time less than 30 hours with no benefits" at $7 and $8 per hour, which in turn means 80% of Walmart workers need Food Stamps and Medicaid to survive. The cost to tax payers to subsidize low wages and under-employment at Walmart is $2.66 Billion per year!!! That's about $400,000 per store. Does that seem right? Companies need to pick up more of this cost or pay higher wages, and hire full time!

  73. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    You are right +Azure Mallone I will leave you to chat with friends who agree with you. 

  74. Brent Burzycki 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi and all – This is the same argument posed in the last couple weeks for Papa John's – I am not sure I agree with the idea that employing tons of people not full time is some kind of sin…

    These people would not have jobs at all if it were not for these companies.. and they should all be looking at both of those companies as stepping stones to full time positions at other companies. 

    I do not want to sound like a complete jerk, but I am about too so hang on.. Walmart and papa johns are not careers they are jobs.. people need to use places like that to shoot for better things. Yes I know all the excuses and all the BS people say out there but as an employer I look at employment in a part time position or multiple part time positions as a concern when hiring. 

    Companies like Walmart and Papa John's can do whatever they want to do – those are their companies and if we all do not like it then we should not work there. Their employees opted to go to work there knowing they were part time…if they "did not know" they need to learn how to read a contract because they signed it… I have a part time employee now, I told him, Part time sucks, you get nothing and I save money, but since that's all the time you have then part time it is. He shook my hand and thanked me for even considering him and works harder than my full time guys. This is rare..

    Many of the people out there complaining that the man is getting them down and they are entitled to more time and full time pay etc, not only do not deserve it, but barely work when they are at work.. There are of course exceptions, but it is not only the CEO's etc that take full advantage of the system.

    What we all need to strive for in the US is more hard working people and less entitlement and in turn hope for less greedy corporations and CEO's.

    Sadly none of this will happen because our politics and country are so damn screwed up it is actually painful to watch daily…

  75. Zack Davis 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi Right to work is bad? So people should be forced to pay people money even if they don't agree with their efforts? 

    The difference between right to work and no right to work is you get CHOICE… it also means that the union has to actually benefit  and do what it's workers as a whole want and not just what the leaders want.

    Right to work is not only choice it's democratic which oddly is supposed to be what unions support, but don't.

  76. Mary Jo Pezzi 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    Regarding their employment contract: Walmart via an outsourced company at their national distribution warehouse for instance, hires people under false promises: You will work for $8 per hour loading and unloading semi-trucks without any benefits during a 90-day probation time. It is documented that turns into a year and the employee is replaced with another "temporary, less than 30 hr employee." There are guys who have to feed families of five who lost their jobs when the financial banksters screwed up the world economy. They were making good incomes but they are among the 700,000 people PER MONTH who lost their jobs in Republican President Bush's last year in office. The stock market has doubled since then — People in their 40s and 50s and 60s have lost their homes and lost their dignity since then.

    But if that is not your story  +Zack Davis or +Brent Burzycki then keep looking the other way and enjoy your life… if you need help in the future, maybe you will understand their despiration in taking a miserable dead-end job.

    My son's $93,000 per year job in high-end sales related to homes disappeared almost overnight, when the real estate markets crashed and all credit dried up. He has worked at 13 different jobs since then, after being a successful regional manager. He is currently making $200 per week at a telephone customer service company. He is 38 years old with two boys in private schools that have extended scholarships to the boys for three years because they are well behaved good students at the top of their class in math etc. Every year, my son and daughter-in-law worry this will be the year they lose their house. I paid their mortgage every month for one year until I lost my job in 2009 at age 60. I don't expect to be hired at $45,000 by anyone again. But thankfully, I am married and my husband has a good retirement pension from working in the defense industry!

    The salary issue — of the top management vs the workers at Hostess is actually a distraction in the real story, which is just the end story example of another company stripped to the bones by vulture capitalists.
    Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/16/hostess-bankrupt-vulture-capitalists-picked-corpse-clean-video/

  77. Roger Baillie 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Zack Davis yes right to work is bad!!! It was created by Republicans to break the unions. It is used by people who expect something for free. They want the Union benefits but they don't want to pay for them.

  78. Zack Davis 19 Nov 2012 Reply

    +Mary Jo Pezzi Your Walmart scenario must include some media hype because I have 3 cousins 4 friends and an uncle that all work for Walmart in nearly every portion of their system. Shipping, Warehouse and Retail and none of them have ever had anything bad to say about their employment, they're treated and paid well enough for what they do. 

    As for the "banksters" you mean cronies to the Democrats and Republicans? Yeah, the ones that were warned for years about the debt bubble they created and that they needed to stop giving their friends and bankers special treatment to avoid the pitfall ahead… Congratulations you showed your bias by not understanding the basic fact that this was caused by Washington being to embedded with the banks. 

    I'm sorry for you and your families hardships, I have several close family members that have lost jobs and homes. It's what happens when the economy is built-up on fake money and now we're all paying the price. We'll continue paying the price until the Billions (some estimate Trillions) of dollars in non-existent money is flushed out of the system. 

    As for your link about Hostess and "Vulture Capitalists" it really says nothing. It discusses their first bankruptcy  years ago when the economy was going fast and then goes off a cliff trying to explain anything more. Except that in one paragraph Hostess asked the union to concede their retirement and benefits and in the next saying it wanted them to surrender $2 billion dollars in pensions. There's no news in that because it's either really poorly written or it's blurring the facts.

    +Roger Baillie You mean it treats the Union as a service and to survive it actually is accountable to the workforce it represents? The whole "free-rider" mentality is there I'm sure but plenty of studies show that people, when capable who use or benefit from something will pay for it.

    There's been numerous studies to show that fact. http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/02/how-much-do-you-think-paul-feldman-will-pay-for-the-new-radiohead-album/
     So in my eyes, it means that if a Union roll is shrinking it's either because their dues are too high or they don't provide enough benefit to the workforce. 

  79. Roger Baillie 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Judge orders hostess to mediate with Union. I hope that helps to save the company and the jobs.


  80. Mary Jo Pezzi 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Good luck Zack. The news reports are there – look for them if you care. Over and out. 

  81. Azure Mallone 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Meanwhile, a protracted meditation will cause the company to fail liquidation parameters and simply fold. This will ultimately affect investors negatively.

    Sounds like the judge is trying, but not being realistic.

  82. Zack Davis 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Even people on Reddit see how the Unions screwed everyone. How people defend their actions is beyond me.


  83. Mary Jo Pezzi 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Forida is a "right to work" state which means forget about fair wages! Just the way the Republican business community likes it! Currently, Florida have a Tea Party Republican governor and an 8.9% unemployment rate with homeless families living in the woods and relying on community centers for shower facilities in a town where my 88 yr old mother and a lot of old people live. Scott is the founding CEO of a health care company that paid the highest settlement in history for Medicare FRAUD. … and he self-financed a $56 million campaign that flooded the TV with "Let's Get To Work" ads targeting desperate people looking for work with homes going into forclosure. He failed the people immediately when he "balanced the budget" by adding thousands of state workers to the unemployment line. He outsourced the state jobs to for-profit companies that took a big chunk off the top for profits then hired fewer workers with few benefits, even outsourcing some of the preocessing work to other states. Then he cut the budgets of all the social programs that might help unemployed and homeless people.

    Notice that Florida Governor Rick Scott was not visible at the NRC, along with former President George Bush… sure we will not see Romney at future NRC conventions as well.

  84. Azure Mallone 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Excellent article, +Zack Davis . You get a cookie. It has chocolate chips.

  85. Roger Baillie 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    Really +Zack Davis. Management of Hostess sucked and you know it! You don't wait until your company is ready for bankruptcy to ask the employees to take a cut in pay and benefits. That should have been done long before bankruptcy . Even I know that!

  86. Mary Jo Pezzi 20 Nov 2012 Reply

    So now maybe "the rest of the story" of Hostess management vs labor union workers vs vulture capitalists will play out in front of the American people, since a judge has ordered a mediator to sit down with the company in the ongoing bankruptcy case. Hostess should have long ago been modernizing and expanding their product base to fit a healthier lifestyle. When was the last time you bought a Hostess cupcake? I read the calories on the side and then the list of preservatives and think… fresh baked in the supermarket deli, better deal.

  87. Brent Burzycki 21 Nov 2012 Reply

    So we have determined that everyone is at fault… Unions suck or might be good and someone will buy Twinkies and still make them .. so I guess in the end… some people will remain working somewhere possibly and some people that still want a twinkie might get one.. possibly..

Leave a Comment!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *