Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business

Nov 16, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,622

As President Barack Obama and congressional leaders prepared for budget and tax talks on Friday aimed at preventing the economy from falling back into recession, a top Republican vowed to overhaul the U.S. tax code next year.

Full Story
Pinball

Los Angeles, CA

#983 Nov 27, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I was only house to last for for for for forever. Good, I was only house twinkies. I wanted my house with stale to last for forever. Good, I was only half finished building my half finished my half finished my house with stale twinkies. I was only half finished my half finished my half finished my house to last for for forever. Good, I was only half finished building my house twinkies. I was only half finished building my house to last forever. Good, I was only house to last for for for forever.
Good for U.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#984 Nov 27, 2012
Pinball wrote:
<quoted text>
R U retarded?
Yep "McGruff" and "The Rest Of Us" are both retards... It's like the blind leading the stupid. They make Forrest Gump look like Einstein.
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#985 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Whatever. I've stated the facts several times about this. Are you really that f*cking dense? Do you really not see the difference between one group agreeing to two pay cuts while the other got huge raises? No wonder this country is in trouble. That must be some REALLY good Kool-Aid.
facts according to you. Not the facts according to the facts. I don't really care what management was paid and it's not relevant. The fact is they could still be working but they choose not to take the deal. So no jobs
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#986 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
facts according to you. Not the facts according to the facts. I don't really care what management was paid and it's not relevant. The fact is they could still be working but they choose not to take the deal. So no jobs
Are there any other kind of facts other than facts? They'd also still be working if management would have made the same sacrifices they were insisting labor make. How is management's pay not relevant to a company that was going bankrupt? Please explain. I'd love to hear this.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#987 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
the workers are to blame. If they had accepted the contract they would have a job. The company would still be in business nitwit. It isn't management that refused the deal. It was the employees. Now they have nothing. Nadda. Zippo.
So if you got to your job in the morning and the boss said your pay was being reduced by 10%, you'd be just to still have a job?

Anyone with dignity and displays some sense of pride in their contributions to the functions of the company would stand up for basic respect for themselves.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#988 Nov 27, 2012
Any company stealing money from their most valued asset, their workers, should be run out of business. Currently, what Hostess is doing is damaging the brand they have built over the years.
no job

Stambaugh, KY

#989 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Any company stealing money from their most valued asset, their workers, should be run out of business. Currently, what Hostess is doing is damaging the brand they have built over the years.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMOCRAT
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#990 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
facts according to you. Not the facts according to the facts. I don't really care what management was paid and it's not relevant. The fact is they could still be working but they choose not to take the deal. So no jobs
Your insistence that in light of Hostess' financial issues labor should have made whatever sacrifices needed to be made; while management was justified in not only forgoing any sacrifices, but taking progressively heftier salary increases just shows how little you understand basic f*cking math. You are as dumb as the day is long. I feel sorry for you. I pray to god you have no children to pass this idiocy on to. You should have a vasectomy as soon as possible to save the agony for any potential future generation.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#991 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you got to your job in the morning and the boss said your pay was being reduced by 10%, you'd be just to still have a job?
Anyone with dignity and displays some sense of pride in their contributions to the functions of the company would stand up for basic respect for themselves.
Exactly, but that idiot will never grasp that concept. He is a fully indoctrinated, mouth-breathing window-licker.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#992 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you got to your job in the morning and the boss said your pay was being reduced by 10%, you'd be just to still have a job?
Anyone with dignity and displays some sense of pride in their contributions to the functions of the company would stand up for basic respect for themselves.
So what would happen in a non-union company? The workers would close the company down? No, they would go out and look for a better job if they could find one. If they couldn't, then they would just have to tolerate their job until they could find another. That's the problem with union operations. Workers don't just leave and go away. They put up a fuss and use whatever legal methods they have available to damage the company.
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#993 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Are there any other kind of facts other than facts? They'd also still be working if management would have made the same sacrifices they were insisting labor make. How is management's pay not relevant to a company that was going bankrupt? Please explain. I'd love to hear this.
no they wouldn't still be working. They had a vote and they decided not to take the deal. Now no job.
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#994 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>So if you got to your job in the morning and the boss said your pay was being reduced by 10%, you'd be just to still have a job?

Anyone with dignity and displays some sense of pride in their contributions to the functions of the company would stand up for basic respect for themselves.
unless you wanted a job. Then you would stay. They decided to go unemployment. Now where are they? What are their chances of employment now that obammycare is killing another 800,000 jobs? Not to good.
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#995 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Any company stealing money from their most valued asset, their workers, should be run out of business. Currently, what Hostess is doing is damaging the brand they have built over the years.
no one was stealing nitwit
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#996 Nov 27, 2012
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Any company stealing money from their most valued asset, their workers, should be run out of business. Currently, what Hostess is doing is damaging the brand they have built over the years.
there is no more. Brand. It isn't a business any longer
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#997 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Your insistence that in light of Hostess' financial issues labor should have made whatever sacrifices needed to be made; while management was justified in not only forgoing any sacrifices, but taking progressively heftier salary increases just shows how little you understand basic f*cking math. You are as dumb as the day is long. I feel sorry for you. I pray to god you have no children to pass this idiocy on to. You should have a vasectomy as soon as possible to save the agony for any potential future generation.
managements pay isn't what caused them to go out nitwit. And the employees had a choice. They choose to lose their jobs.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#998 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any other kind of facts other than facts? They'd also still be working if management would have made the same sacrifices they were insisting labor make. How is management's pay not relevant to a company that was going bankrupt? Please explain. I'd love to hear this.
For one, I have not read anything about management and these outrageous raises they gave to themselves. I've read about a dozen or so articles. I'm sure I could find something on JoesBlog.com or something like that, but no credible news outlets.

True, Hostess had money problems and they also had new production problems as well. But that's not for the workers to figure out, that's for management to figure out. The workers concentrate on working and that's it. If they don't like the money being offered, then leave the company peacefully. Closing the company down is a lose-lose situation for everybody: labor, management, consumers and taxpayers. Management didn't choose that--unions and their workers did.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#999 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
So what would happen in a non-union company? The workers would close the company down? No, they would go out and look for a better job if they could find one. If they couldn't, then they would just have to tolerate their job until they could find another. That's the problem with union operations. Workers don't just leave and go away. They put up a fuss and use whatever legal methods they have available to damage the company.
Correct... in a non-union company, workers would go out and look for another job IF THEY COULD FIND ONE. The key phrase being "IF THEY COULD FIND ONE". Usually they end up tolerating their shitty job (especially in this new economy) indefinitely. Meanwhile, management has all the "legal methods" you were talking about on their side and labor has basically nothing to prevent management from implementing more cuts etc. I know this from first-hand experience. Anybody that supports this type of arrangement simply doesn't care about their fellow American workers. It would be fine if we weren't competing with places like China for labor costs, but that's not reality. If I were in control, I'd work this deal: We'll give up ALL unions if NAFTA is completely repealed and there is an amendment added to the constitution banning all possibility of creating a NAFTA-like policy in the future. That would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion.
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#1000 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Correct... in a non-union company, workers would go out and look for another job IF THEY COULD FIND ONE. The key phrase being "IF THEY COULD FIND ONE". Usually they end up tolerating their shitty job (especially in this new economy) indefinitely. Meanwhile, management has all the "legal methods" you were talking about on their side and labor has basically nothing to prevent management from implementing more cuts etc. I know this from first-hand experience. Anybody that supports this type of arrangement simply doesn't care about their fellow American workers. It would be fine if we weren't competing with places like China for labor costs, but that's not reality. If I were in control, I'd work this deal: We'll give up ALL unions if NAFTA is completely repealed and there is an amendment added to the constitution banning all possibility of creating a NAFTA-like policy in the future. That would be a reasonable compromise in my opinion.
so what are they doing now? Are they out looking for a job? One thing I know they aren't doing. Working at hostess
joey

Maringouin, LA

#1001 Nov 27, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
So you won't accept that the FREE MARKET decided that Hostess makes crap that no one wants to eat. I bet you are still in denial about the last election too! LOL
the free market didnt decide this but your greedy liberal unions did !you arent fit to eat a twinkie and prefer odummy turds for your snack!eat the breakfast of liberals and moochell!hostess turds brought to you by the odummys?their mil.finest?
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1002 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right... you DO have the choice which bank you take your money to; but they all operate essentially the same way. They are an abstract financial siphoning mechanism. Some are of course worse or better than others. Credit Unions are obviously the least guilty of the lot. So you get to choose WHO is going to siphon off your money. That sounds like freedom to me! You further illustrated my point... if you are going to do ANYTHING in this society beside work for cash, pay cash for everything and resign yourself to never purchasing a house; sure... you can live without a bank. But if you plan on living in this thing called THE REAL WORLD, you have no choice but to let them siphon off you. My issue is that between the bailouts and the bad loans they made a killing on the '08 crash and continue to make piles of money for doing essentially nothing.
Of course they did. But who wrote the housing guidelines? That's the question. The answer of course is government. Anytime the government gets involved trying to operate the private sector, it's nothing but a disaster.

When I have to call a plumber to snake out the drains in the yard, I pay him. I don't consider it syphoning anything because I hired that person to perform a specific service. When I decide to do business with a bank, I am hiring somebody to do a specific service which I agree to pay for. There is nothing wrong with that.

Banks don't make money from cashing checks if that's the only service you need from them. Open up an account and put in just enough money to cover your checks and that's all you need. If not, you can go to one of those check cashing places, but they will charge you a fee.

Nobody works for free in this country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Euless Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Nepali stripper+ in DFW, Bindu Pariyar (Apr '13) 14 hr Dead Pumkin Wimp 16
Sexual Predators who turn violent....Russell Jo... Thu Disgusted in Dallas 1
Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Dec 17 98 Degree Diarrhea 595
This is actually pretty cool. Dec 16 Big bad john 2
Looking for a deadbeat mom, Lupe "Lu" Castillo (Oct '07) Dec 16 Big bad john 9
Man sues Colleyville bariatric clinic over ampu... Dec 16 Bone crusher 1
Paying red-light camera ticket can be tricky (Oct '09) Dec 10 Big bad john 32

Euless News Video

Euless Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Euless People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Euless News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Euless

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:11 am PST

ESPN11:11AM
RG III (right shoulder) probable vs. Cowboys
NBC Sports11:16 AM
Redskins' RG3 has full practice, probable for game - NBC Sports
NBC Sports11:54 AM
DeMarco Murray good to go for Sunday
NBC Sports12:42 PM
Could Watt be 1st NFL MVP since Taylor in 1986? - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:04 PM
Romo, Cowboys not backing off against Redskins - NBC Sports