No more Twinkies D:

[road-runner]

[Onion]

Damn, they're sold out in stores.

[Tjj226_Angel]

Double posted.

[Tjj226_Angel]

I think you meant a pallet of Surge.

 

I don't understand this whole craze. I think that someone will buy the rights to make twinkies and they'll still be around.

 

Most likely.

 

This whole situation is the story of my freaking life.

 

I wanted to go to a particular paleontology exhibit in oklahoma while we where living there. My parents told me that we could go "next week". Two days later the largest tornado in world history completely destroys it.

 

I wanted to go to NYC for my birthday and see all the sites. My parents were just about to make hotel reservations (my birthday is closer to the end of September) and the news started going berserk with 9/11.

 

I wanted to learn trigonometry (because I want to go into engineering.... not because I am a masochist) in precalc 2, and my teacher gets into a car accident the day before we were to start that section.

 

And I wanted to go to Las Vegas for my XXX birthday and have deep fried twinkies, and play some poker, but the freaking twinkies has now gone out of business, and with the way this world is driving itself into the ground, poker will probably soon be illegal in a few months.

 

I think I should stop wishing for things. I seem to cause mass destruction.

[Onion]

Went to the store to look for a twinkie. Boy was a disappointed when they didn't have any. I thought I had wasted a trip to the store, when at the last second I saw something from the corner of my eye. HOLY FUCKING SHIT, ITS A GOD DAMN PECAN PIE! Well, I bought that pecan pie and ate it up before I even got home. Sure as hell beats a twinkie.

[NCC10281982B]

My link

[Onion]

My link

 

Ewwwww, chocolate.

[ccokeman]

I think you meant a pallet of Surge.

 

I don't understand this whole craze. I think that someone will buy the rights to make twinkies and they'll still be around.

 

Yep I think so. Frozen Twinkies FTW!

[flareback]

My link

Are those the nasty ones that taste like wax?

[malmsteenisgod]

While the union may be an easy scapegoat for Hostess's failure, the real blame lies with the management. The company continued to ignore market trends and went in and out of bankruptcy several times. They continued to try to sell the same products with the same business model for decades and failed to adapt. The management's solution had always been to file another bankruptcy and continue with the same model. When all that failed they tried to impose an 8% cut in pay and 32% cut in benefits to employees. The CEO knew his business was failing so he tripled his pay in what can only be considered premeditated.

 

So before we go screaming that Hostess was built by capitalists and destroyed by socialists, maybe people should stop looking for scapegoats and put the blame where it really lies. It lies in poor management and outdated products. Hostess consistently failed to give consumers a product that they want to buy. That's how capitalism works. There's no logic in blaming socialism or unions for this failure.

[Guest_Jim_*]

While the union may be an easy scapegoat for Hostess's failure, the real blame lies with the management. The company continued to ignore market trends and went in and out of bankruptcy several times. They continued to try to sell the same products with the same business model for decades and failed to adapt. The management's solution had always been to file another bankruptcy and continue with the same model. When all that failed they tried to impose an 8% cut in pay and 32% cut in benefits to employees. The CEO knew his business was failing so he tripled his pay in what can only be considered premeditated.

 

So before we go screaming that Hostess was built by capitalists and destroyed by socialists, maybe people should stop looking for scapegoats and put the blame where it really lies. It lies in poor management and outdated products. Hostess consistently failed to give consumers a product that they want to buy. That's how capitalism works. There's no logic in blaming socialism or unions for this failure.

While I don't disagree that companies going out of business is part of how capitalism works, to put all the blame on the company isn't correct here. Some of the blame? Yes. Most of the blame? Probably. All of blame? No, because the one union refused to negotiate. Maybe the company would have been able to come out of the current bankruptcy better than before (actually the purpose of many forms of bankruptcy) but because of the one union's decision, the company does not have that chance and all the employees are losing their jobs. A successful deal and bankruptcy may have saved some of those jobs, at least for a little longer.

Also the union did fail. It obviously acted without regard to ensuring the employment of its members because then it would have negotiated instead of calling the company on what was not a bluff. If a union exists to protect its members, this union failed in a large and very media-grabbing way. Now the best we can hope is that those 18,500 employees can find new jobs that are similar to what they have now, though they may end up losing some of the benefits that have accrued over time if they do get new jobs. Not all of them will find work though. Meanwhile, do you think the backer's union bosses are going to see their pay or pensions reduced?

Plenty of failure to go around for company and union.

[malmsteenisgod]

While I don't disagree that companies going out of business is part of how capitalism works, to put all the blame on the company isn't correct here. Some of the blame? Yes. Most of the blame? Probably. All of blame? No, because the one union refused to negotiate. Maybe the company would have been able to come out of the current bankruptcy better than before (actually the purpose of many forms of bankruptcy) but because of the one union's decision, the company does not have that chance and all the employees are losing their jobs. A successful deal and bankruptcy may have saved some of those jobs, at least for a little longer.

Also the union did fail. It obviously acted without regard to ensuring the employment of its members because then it would have negotiated instead of calling the company on what was not a bluff. If a union exists to protect its members, this union failed in a large and very media-grabbing way. Now the best we can hope is that those 18,500 employees can find new jobs that are similar to what they have now, though they may end up losing some of the benefits that have accrued over time if they do get new jobs. Not all of them will find work though. Meanwhile, do you think the backer's union bosses are going to see their pay or pensions reduced?

Plenty of failure to go around for company and union.

I totally agree that the union was part of the failure here, but it was a very small part in comparison to what this company has been going through for years. But most of what we've seen in this thread so far has been union bashing, so I took it upon myself to present the other half of the story.