Farewell, Twinkies

[StankApe]

You betcha! Haven't you noticed the word, "Enriched" on the package? I'm pretty sure it's there, someplace. Something involving Vitamins AND Minerals I believe. Minerals for crying out loud!!! And now there are saying they'll sell the top secret Twinkie technology to the highest bidder? So, we all know what THAT means! Weaponized Twinkies. Surely the end is nigh.

yes, yes I do. It means a Twinkie gap. (I warned of this earlier, but nobody wanted to listen to me)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...
It's amazing how many people will support the side that is bleeding them dry all the way to the desert.

I know what you mean ... People will support the unions, and rather have the company go bust and put everyone out of work, than make any concessions with wages and benefits..

 

[balrog666]

Question for those more familiar with unions: Why was only pay cuts/benefit cuts considered? When my company went through 3 quarters of losses, they cut the headcount. Do the unions prevent the headcount reduction? If so, and if the demand for hostess products has supposedly gone downhill, then wouldn't it make sense to reduce headcount? I didn't see any mention of RIFS in any of the reports I read.

Yes, the unions prevented reductions in employee headcount. Hostess had to use multiple drivers and trucks on their route deliveries because the unions refused to allow a single truck to carry both Wonderbread and Twinkies. Hostess had to have extra, redundant employees to load and unload the delivery trucks because the union drivers refused to do the loading/unloading. Ditto, ditto, ditto - it all had to do with BS involving union "job definitions" and union "work rules" that pad the union work force and extort more money out of the host company. And I use that word "host" deliberately.

 

[qayak]

I know what you mean ... People will support the unions, and rather have the company go bust and put everyone out of work, than make any concessions with wages and benefits..

If the business can't make a go of it, they should go bust. It isn't the employees obligation to work for free so a company that has poor products and poor business practices can stay in business for a few more months.

Hostess has been in trouble for a long time because their product is unhealthy and people care about that these days. You would think that Hostess would address the problem with new products that customers want, not the same old crap that caused so many people to be over weight and suffer long term health problems.

ETA: I was told by a shop I worked in that I would have to do the same jobs for less money in order to get work in the door. I simply told them that if I am going to go bankrupt I am going to do it sitting on the couch with my feet up watching TV not working my ass off, using my tools, for a company that can't keep work coming in. I went an found a new job, they were out of business a few months later.

 

[StankApe]

If the business can't make a go of it, they should go bust. It isn't the employees obligation to work for free so a company that has poor products and poor business practices can stay in business for a few more months.

Hostess has been in trouble for a long time because their product is unhealthy and people care about that these days. You would think that Hostess would address the problem with new products that customers want, not the same old crap that caused so many people to be over weight and suffer long term health problems.

really? it was the twinkie's fault not the person?

I have eaten a fair bit of hostess products in my time, and I'm not obese.

it's called having self control, 2 twinkie's a week is fine, 5 twinkies a day is not

 

[qayak]

really? it was the twinkie's fault not the person?

I have eaten a fair bit of hostess products in my time, and I'm not obese.

it's called having self control, 2 twinkie's a week is fine, 5 twinkies a day is not

Unfortunately, that is a myth. A simply understanding of human evolution explains why what you say doesn't work just like abstinence, and "just say no!," programs fail so miserably.

 

[Babbylonian]

really? it was the twinkie's fault not the person?

I have eaten a fair bit of hostess products in my time, and I'm not obese.

it's called having self control, 2 twinkie's a week is fine, 5 twinkies a day is not

Welcome to missing the point, and this goes right back to the overpaid executives. The point was that the attitude towards Hostess' products had clearly changed. There are 2 potential solutions to that problem that could have kept the company in business and made it profitable again: Change those attitudes or change the products. They clearly threw out the latter idea because the products you'd see in any "Hostess section" of a store a month ago were virtually identical to the products you would have seen in the same place 30 years ago. As far as changing attitudes go, they could hardly promote the health benefits of their products and I at least was never exposed to any memorable advertising for their products since I was reading comic books (superheroes seemed to love Twinkies and Hostess Fruit Pies).

Companies fail if they stand still.

 

[Jomante]

Hostess has been in trouble for a long time because their product is unhealthy and people care about that these days. You would think that Hostess would address the problem with new products that customers want, not the same old crap that caused so many people to be over weight and suffer long term health problems.
.

The suddenly empty shelves at the supermarket suggest that people actually do like it, unhealthy or not. But could you imagine a "Hostess Garden Salad"? How many people would think "oh, hey, that's going to be a healthy salad". I don't agree with your assessment. Diversity is a plus. But not in that direction.

 

[Dancing David]

The thought that came to me was "Twinkies - A cake food"!

 

[StankApe]

Welcome to missing the point, and this goes right back to the overpaid executives. The point was that the attitude towards Hostess' products had clearly changed. There are 2 potential solutions to that problem that could have kept the company in business and made it profitable again: Change those attitudes or change the products. They clearly threw out the latter idea because the products you'd see in any "Hostess section" of a store a month ago were virtually identical to the products you would have seen in the same place 30 years ago. As far as changing attitudes go, they could hardly promote the health benefits of their products and I at least was never exposed to any memorable advertising for their products since I was reading comic books (superheroes seemed to love Twinkies and Hostess Fruit Pies).

Companies fail if they stand still.

I didn't miss the point, I just found a flaw with part of his post. I disagree with the concept that individuals don't carry the blame for their dependencies. be it booze, cocaine, food...etc

I'm a firm believer that what we do to ourselves is our own fault/credit.

 

[Dancing David]

I know what you mean ... People will support the unions, and rather have the company go bust and put everyone out of work, than make any concessions with wages and benefits..

Just so you know, I do not support all unions and all the choices they make. I even belong to one. They always love to hear what I have to say at the table too! I tell them to stop whining.

I frustrate the one or two union hard ons I work with. But then our contract is reasonable, no labor guarantees, just a seniority list and a grievance procedure. No tenure either. I get a decent medical which I only pay $140/month for. So I am content.

 

[StankApe]

Just so you know, I do not support all unions and all the choices they make. I even belong to one. They always love to hear what I have to say at the table too! I tell them to stop whining.

I frustrate the one or two union hard ons I work with. But then our contract is reasonable, no labor guarantees, just a seniority list and a grievance procedure. No tenure either. I get a decent medical which I only pay $140/month for. So I am content.

I think that it's important to state that I'm not against ALL unions(I don't think that they are inherently bad or anything) but I DO think that when a union is being unreasonable it needs to be called out for it. When all the other unions at a business are complaining about the lone holdout, you have to think it isn't just "mean ole mgmt out to screw the working man".

Plus as stated , the Baker's union is more than willing to sacrifice those member's jobs if it means they get to save face for the union as a whole.



Now personally, I have always refused to join a union if one was present where I worked (and the laws of my state permit that). I don't like the concept of collective bargaining. I prefer that my value be dictated by my performance and not because of what some union thug and Mgmt rep decide it's worth. Plus, I think mgmt should be able to fire bad workers without needing an act of congress. The above union description sounds pretty ideal to me.

 

[WildCat]

If the business can't make a go of it, they should go bust. It isn't the employees obligation to work for free so a company that has poor products and poor business practices can stay in business for a few more months.

Hostess has been in trouble for a long time because their product is unhealthy and people care about that these days. You would think that Hostess would address the problem with new products that customers want, not the same old crap that caused so many people to be over weight and suffer long term health problems.

ETA: I was told by a shop I worked in that I would have to do the same jobs for less money in order to get work in the door. I simply told them that if I am going to go bankrupt I am going to do it sitting on the couch with my feet up watching TV not working my ass off, using my tools, for a company that can't keep work coming in. I went an found a new job, they were out of business a few months later.

So in your opinion Hostess should have gone away in 2004, and everyone would be better off?

 

[qayak]

So in your opinion Hostess should have gone away in 2004, and everyone would be better off?

Non sequitur.

In 2004 the union was told that if they would just take a wage cut everything would be fine with the company. They did, it wasn't but the person holding the job of CEO, there have been 6 since 2004, has had their wage tripled.

The point being, the union did their part. It was the management team that failed. The company has poor products that people no longer want which would explain why their sales have been dropping for so long.

Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with the refusal of the members of the union to take another large wage cut is living in a fantasy world. Hostess is just another example of an outdated company that refuses to change its business model in order to compete in a changing market place. Too bad, so sad.

But none of that means I think everyone, or anyone, would have been better off if the company had failed in 2004. I think everyone would have been better off if the management team that promised to turn the company around in 2004 had lived up to their obligations.

 

[qayak]

Plus as stated , the Baker's union is more than willing to sacrifice those member's jobs if it means they get to save face for the union as a whole.

You are quite the little psychic! Of course you are aware that it was the union members in the bakery that turned down the wage cut thereby sacrificing their own jobs.

 

[StankApe]

Under the guidance of leadership, who gets to sit at home earning their 6 figure salaries after making a decision that cost 18,500 people their jobs.

 

[qayak]

The suddenly empty shelves at the supermarket suggest that people actually do like it, unhealthy or not. But could you imagine a "Hostess Garden Salad"? How many people would think "oh, hey, that's going to be a healthy salad". I don't agree with your assessment. Diversity is a plus. But not in that direction.

Hostess failed because their sales dropped through the floor. They got a wake up call in 2004 and did nothing about it. Their sales have continued to fall.

Their sales fell because more and more people are understanding that these snacks, even in small amounts, are terrible for them no matter how good they taste. They have zero nutritional value and nothing but bad effects on the body, especially young bodies.

 

[StankApe]

Yes, because we all know that people have grown small and fragile due to their lack of nutrition.........

I smell a food agenda here....

 

[WildCat]

Non sequitur.

In 2004 the union was told that if they would just take a wage cut everything would be fine with the company. They did, it wasn't but the person holding the job of CEO, there have been 6 since 2004, has had their wage tripled.

You've just proved it does follow. Why do you think they had so many CEOs? What sort of CEO would you get for the price of the failed initial CEO?

You are saying that CEO pay should not be increased, yes?

The point being, the union did their part. It was the management team that failed. The company has poor products that people no longer want which would explain why their sales have been dropping for so long.

So unions can only get credit when things go well for a company, but bear no responsibility when things don't go well?

But that's beside the point, how would you implement your ideas (whatever they are) if you were magically in charge of the corporate board in 2004? You're constrained to your current CEO or you have to hire a new one for the same price or less per your own rule. And selling equity to raise cash is also out, lest a vulture equity firm buy your rotting corpse.

Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with the refusal of the members of the union to take another large wage cut is living in a fantasy world. Hostess is just another example of an outdated company that refuses to change its business model in order to compete in a changing market place. Too bad, so sad.

Does the union model ever become outdated and unable to compete? Do rules that trucks can only carry one type of product make a company more or less competitive, for example? How about union rules that prevent consideration of an automated process that produces a superior product at lower cost than the current method, but means you only need half as many union workers as before? Does that ever become obsolete?

But none of that means I think everyone, or anyone, would have been better off if the company had failed in 2004. I think everyone would have been better off if the management team that promised to turn the company around in 2004 had lived up to their obligations.

They didn't live up to their promise, they were forced out. 6 times by your own count. You find this unacceptable, yet what alternative is there? What does qayak's hypothetical board do when the new CEO (that you hired for cheap) fails to live up to his promises?

 

[WildCat]

Hostess failed because their sales dropped through the floor. They got a wake up call in 2004 and did nothing about it. Their sales have continued to fall.

Their sales fell because more and more people are understanding that these snacks, even in small amounts, are terrible for them no matter how good they taste. They have zero nutritional value and nothing but bad effects on the body, especially young bodies.

Are you claiming that the junk food market, in the USA, is shrinking????