No more Twinkies?

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

Might be so
Just to put a stick in it, I still say the union is at fault in the final nail.

They say that twinkies will stay preserved for a year or more. Combine that fact with your news story, and I'm cleaning out the store shelves and stocking up my pantry. A year from now when you guys are desperate for a twinkie, I'll be selling mine, at a premium price. They're gold.

[normiss 622]

Nah, Hostess has said they will auction those brands off...so I would expect the name to endure.
'Taste' may change somewhat...

[kallend 1,635]

What will defense attorneys do now? Chewbacca?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Might be so
Just to put a stick in it, I still say the union is at fault in the final nail.

They say that twinkies will stay preserved for a year or more. Combine that fact with your news story, and I'm cleaning out the store shelves and stocking up my pantry. A year from now when you guys are desperate for a twinkie, I'll be selling mine, at a premium price. They're gold.

Do so at your own peril. There are laws against price gouging. You also run the risk of being burgled or robbed at gun point by twinkie-heads.

[quade 3]

Quote

There are laws against price gouging.

Cool. Sell me all your gold at $32 an ounce.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[weekender 0]

Quote

Yet, somehow, it's the union's fault...not management for how the company has been run.

Okay...uh...I guess that makes sense if you're a blame shifting pussy who happens to be the head of a company.

its run by private equity. those investors dont care about blame. they care about profit. its not personal for them. if they feel they cannot make the profit they desire they will cut their loses. its their money at risk and they get to make all the decisions with it. they do not care about who gets blame or credit. they invested for a profit and if they cannot make one then they will move on to another project. sadly, the union people will be the ones to lose their jobs forever.

bankers care about balance sheets and income statements. blame shifting and name calling is all just noise. the union doesnt see the big picture and is missing the point completely by thinking its about management vs them.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[normiss 622]

In the end it didn't matter.
The union got their way. They fully refused a lower wage for 4 years to help the company they worked for for so many years.
Now they have no jobs. Nor do any other employees.
The assets will be liquidated now.
Congrats on your successful negotiations baker's union!
Win!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

In the end it didn't matter.
The union got their way. They fully refused a lower wage for 4 years to help the company they worked for for so many years.
Now they have no jobs. Nor do any other employees.
The assets will be liquidated now.
Congrats on your successful negotiations baker's union!
Win!

Twinkies were too much like crack anyway. Now if they would just shut down Krispy Kreme.

This is a sad commentary for American Businesses. I expect to see the unemployment rate go up to nearly 15% before the end of 2013.

[quade 3]

I sort of agree with you. The unions didn't understand they were being played as pawns. That still doesn't excuse the work of the venture capitalists.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Replace those words with share holders.
Same path.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Seriously?

How many companies have we seen file for "bankruptcy" over the years simply as a union busting tactic? Happens all the time and it's pure management bullshit to attempt to get out of contracts the unions previously agreed to in good faith and are then reassigned in bankruptcy court without negotiation.

Just read the first paragraph of the article.

Now that Hostess has gone the way of Eastern Airlines, let's see whether the Bakers union will congratulate itself and its union members for it's victory over Hostess the way it did back in the early 90's.

It is far better that people be union unemployed but union than to be employed under contracts freely negotiated individually and without a union. But, fortunately, the unions themselves have found numerous proud and dedicated members who are willing to shout "Hissatsu" (that's Japanese for "Critical Strike" - coincidence?) to support the cause.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The unions didn't understand they were being played as pawns.

The unions weren't played as pawns. The union members were played as pawns. By both sides.

Issue - one side has a duty to represent the best interests of the union members. Problem - unions represent the best interests of themselves. Unions are corporations, just like any other, and they are in the business of making profit. If the contract proposed won't make them a profit, they're happy enough to liquidate, too.

Unions served a valuable purpose in the past. Now they thrive on inefficiency and I have no doubt that they consider will consider this Hostess matter to be a victory. The union will survive. Hostess will not.

And in the wreckage are workers and livelihoods.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[weekender 0]

Quote

I sort of agree with you. The unions didn't understand they were being played as pawns. That still doesn't excuse the work of the venture capitalists.

i dont understand your post. what did the venture capitalist due wrong or need to be excused for? the company went out of business and they agreed to raise the capital to continue operations. their goal was for the comany to return to profitabitlity and continue operations so they would get a return on thier investment. it didnt work out and they will take a loss on this project. without them the company would have liquidated the first time it filed. again, what do they need to be excused for?

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[quade 3]

Their goal was never to return the company to profitability. Their goal was to break up the company and sell the pieces for a bigger profit than what they bought it for.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Their goal was never to return the company to profitability. Their goal was to break up the company and sell the pieces for a bigger profit than what they bought it for.

You really make the unions look like total assholes for colluding with Hostess or complete incompetents for playing right into Hostess' hands. Either way, the union failed to protect its workers and now all employees will suffer.

Next up - US Postal Service.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

This is a sad commentary for American Businesses. I expect to see the unemployment rate go up to nearly 15% before the end of 2013.

[lawrocket 3]

Problem is going to be defining "unemployment." Due to regulatory definitions, there will be fewer people working full time. This means that there will be a massive increase in part time employment - fewer than 28 hours per week.

This can then be counted as an increase in employment, since there will be more people with jobs, albeit part-time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[weekender 0]

Quote

Their goal was never to return the company to profitability. Their goal was to break up the company and sell the pieces for a bigger profit than what they bought it for.

that does not make sense. if it was possible to have made money selling off the parts, then the original owners would have done that. why on earth would they deal with the headache of raising money and continuing to run a bunch of plants when they could have sold it off and walked away with a profit. that makes no sense to me.

the only way they could get a return on their investments was to return it to profitabiltiy and THEN take it public or sell it. Staples and Kmart are good examples that come to mind, there are many others. that is what private equity firms do. if was easier to just buy it and chop it up then they would have. that works int he movies but not a real world situation. a working profitable factory iis worth more than a non working vacant factory. again, that makes no sense to me.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

Quote

I sort of agree with you. The unions didn't understand they were being played as pawns. That still doesn't excuse the work of the venture capitalists.

i just noticed you wrote venture capital. i did not say that, nor is it true or does it make sense. i said private equity. venture capital is early stage investors. not the same type of banking investment or structure. seeing this mistake might explain your understanding of banking and also why you think a vacant non functioning factory is worth more than a fully functioning profitable one.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

the only way they could get a return on their investments was to return it to profitabiltiy and THEN take it public or sell it

True. Bankruptcy sale is not where to get the most money out of anything.

The mere act of going into bankruptcy certainly suggests that profit-selling is not an initial motive.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,417]

>I sort of agree with you. The unions didn't understand they were being played as pawns.

Pawns? They got what they wanted. They didn't want to work under those conditions/agreements, so now they don't have to.

[quade 3]

Quote

Next up - US Postal Service.

Good thing you're not a Constitutional lawyer.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Next up - US Postal Service.

Good thing you're not a Constitutional lawyer.

Nicely put. Turns out the USPS has taxpayer money to bail it out. Sure, it's not going anywhere - it's one of the few services that the Constitution specifically authorizes the government to provide. But it lost $15.9 billion for FY2012. That's with $65 billion in revenues.

And what is it that is driving down USPS? The same thing that is driving the State of California down - pension payments. Payments for retiree benefits. Oh, yeah - unions had a lot to do with that, as well. And Congress is requiring the USPS to pay into those benefits.

Just like Medicare and Social Security, promises made (and frequently on taxpayer dime) end up costing plenty in the future.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And what is it that is driving down USPS? The same thing that is driving the State of California down - pension payments. Payments for retiree benefits. Oh, yeah - unions had a lot to do with that, as well. And Congress is requiring the USPS to pay into those benefits.

though pensions no doubt are a huge factor, I tend to look to it's growing irrelevance in an electronic world, killing their most profitable line of business, and the workers' inability to see that providing shitty service will only increase the problem.

[quade 3]

Quote

But it lost $15.9 billion for FY2012. That's with $65 billion in revenues.

So . . . What?

You have any idea how much the Department of Defense lost last year and how much revenue they generated?

It's a government service. It always has been. It's not a business.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver