Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business

There are 20 comments on the Nov 16, 2012, Reuters story titled Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business. In it, Reuters reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1003 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 If I were in control, I'd work this deal: We'll give up ALL unions if NAFTA is completely repealed and there is an amendment added to the constitution banning all possibility of creating a NAFTA-like policy in the future.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.
And you actually believe union people would agree to that? Do you realize the billions in exports we have in this country because of NAFTA? True, we do have a trade deficit, but that doesn't discount that there is some good in NAFTA.

You are correct, labor has nothing to say about what their pay scale is. But you also bring up that there are no other jobs out there, so what's your choice? If you can't find a job that paid as much as you make at your current company, then it's not the company. It's you. It's up to you to make yourself worth more--not the companies.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1004 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
you are right I don't understand the twisted logic of a liberal.
You have problem with people pointing to the FACT that you are a c/s, m/f liar, with the c/s portion being literal description and I shall remind viewers that you insisted on your interpretation of Kentucky law even after I copied the EXACT law several dozen times while you insisted the law said something else and then finally that the Kentucky law didn't cover your part of Kentucky.

And now you want to blame the poor workers who sweep the floors and drove the trucks and baked the cakes at Hostess for the FAILURE of the company even though the decisions that ran the debt to over two billion dollars were made by the execs that ran the company.

Kneepads, you are a c/s, m/f tea bag crybaby. Wipe your chin and PS: the election is over.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1005 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I get your point, but management DID choose what they offered labor and they knew what the result would be. It's exactly like in politics when one side offers a ridiculous bill, knowing damn well the other side's gonna reject it then blames the other side for the fact that there's nothing getting done.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1006 Nov 27, 2012
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> the steel industry started to decline in the 1950's. The world coming out of World War 2 was rebuilding and retooling its manufacturing base. And they were more modern as we did not do the same. On top of that being that we were still producing most of the steel it seemed like clockwork that the steelworkers would threaten strike along with the auto workers. By the late 1960's the steel industry was in trouble. That must be some work though working in a steel factory.
Living in a steel town, I can tell you that steel was strong right through the 70's in this country. The unions broke them as well. But another factor in the steel issue is plastic. What were some of the major need for steel years ago? Cars.

I guess we can also blame the environmentalists for our steel decline. Look at your car today compared to the 70's. What's it made out of? Much of it is not steel.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Draketown, GA

#1007 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.
Quoting President Clinton, NAFTA MEANS JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS, I WOULDN'T SIGN IT, IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1008 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I still say banks take a lot more than they contribute, but you posed some valid points. When a plumber comes to your house, he (or she) has to physically do something and they are compensated decently for this service. Banks however, may click a mouse and they are among the most highly compensated people in the world. Like I said... abstract financial siphoning mechanism. Anyway...
As far as all the money they made by artificially inflating the housing market... that was after the DEregulation of the financial markets. Only through governmental regulatory intervention have we restored some semblance of order in the financial markets (in terms of how business is actually conducted). Anyway... again, you offer some good arguments that are actually worth bothering to discuss, so thank you. You and I may not necessarily agree on all the rhetoric, but you are an intelligent person.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1009 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I get your point, but management DID choose what they offered labor and they knew what the result would be. It's exactly like in politics when one side offers a ridiculous bill, knowing damn well the other side's gonna reject it then blames the other side for the fact that there's nothing getting done.
I disagree because from what I've read, there were a dozen unions in the Hostess industry. Eleven of them considered the offer from Hostess, but the one who didn't (The Bakers Union) refused no matter what was asked of them by their other fellow unions.

You can't pay out more than you take in. Nothing is successful. Going back to banks, if you cash a $500.00 check but withdraw $600.00 in it's place, the bank can only survive so long before it goes out of business. Either that or they have to stop that practice. They can only let you withdraw $500.00 if you cash a check for $500.00.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1010 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
For one, I have not read anything about management and these outrageous raises they gave to themselves.
Shocking... yet you blame the union for the company failing about management ran the debt to two billion dollars.

Tell us why it is the union's fault for the two billion dollar hole.

Explain your thinking that the people ruining the company insist the unions cut their pay IN HALF while they increased their pay- some over 300 percent, including the CEO who was making $2.5 million but it is the fault of the bakers making less than $30,000.

Because it sure looks like you are blaming the union no matter what.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1011 Nov 27, 2012
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting President Clinton, NAFTA MEANS JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS, I WOULDN'T SIGN IT, IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
Of course, NAFTA was Reagan's idea from the get go.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1012 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And you actually believe union people would agree to that? Do you realize the billions in exports we have in this country because of NAFTA? True, we do have a trade deficit, but that doesn't discount that there is some good in NAFTA.
You are correct, labor has nothing to say about what their pay scale is. But you also bring up that there are no other jobs out there, so what's your choice? If you can't find a job that paid as much as you make at your current company, then it's not the company. It's you. It's up to you to make yourself worth more--not the companies.
NAFTA has driven American workers' salaries down due to foreign competition. There's just no way around that. I don't know if unions would agree with my hypothetical compromise, but I feel like it would be a "meet half way" thing. Not great for everybody, but not terrible either.
As far as not being able to find a job that pays decently from a current job... there are more and more low wage and/or temp jobs on the market as decent jobs are disappearing. As best as I can determine, this is due to the downward pressure being exerted on wages by foreign competition. There simply aren't enough decent paying jobs for everybody to even live lower middle class anymore. I'm talking LOWER middle class... basic house, car that runs (NOT a new car), utilities, a decently balanced diet and medical insurance. Nothing fancy at all. It's ridiculous when someone works for a living and they cant even afford those basics. This is not due to failure on the part of a huge percentage of people... it's due to bad policy.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1013 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I still say banks take a lot more than they contribute, but you posed some valid points. When a plumber comes to your house, he (or she) has to physically do something and they are compensated decently for this service. Banks however, may click a mouse and they are among the most highly compensated people in the world. Like I said... abstract financial siphoning mechanism. Anyway...
As far as all the money they made by artificially inflating the housing market... that was after the DEregulation of the financial markets. Only through governmental regulatory intervention have we restored some semblance of order in the financial markets (in terms of how business is actually conducted). Anyway... again, you offer some good arguments that are actually worth bothering to discuss, so thank you. You and I may not necessarily agree on all the rhetoric, but you are an intelligent person.
Well thank you very much. We seem to have a civil discourse between us.

I just want to say that the housing bubble started back in Clinton's day. He hired a very young and inexperienced guy to run HUD. HUD is the overseer of Fanny and Freddy.

Andrew Cuomo decided to institute 0% down with little or no credit checks. You had people with not a pot to pss in or a window to throw it out of getting home loans. I know because I lost several good tenants with that new policy.

Those bad loans went to Wall Street where they were bundled with some good loans and given the AAA rating by the government. The loans were sold off and that's when the sht hit the fan. Nothing major took place early because at the end of Clinton's term, economic activity began to slow. When Bush got the economy going again, that's when house sales went on a frenzy.

So what the banks did was provide those loans in accordance with government standards, and sold those loans off to Fanny--Freddy and just about anybody else who could dump them on Wall Street.

So we can point to this regulation or that deregulation, but the truth of the matter is that you can't have bad securities to sell unless you have those bad securities to begin with. The object is to stop those bad loans so they could never make it to Wall Street with or without regulation.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#1014 Nov 27, 2012
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting President Clinton, NAFTA MEANS JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS, I WOULDN'T SIGN IT, IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
Amen Bro

But he meant "Liberal Translation"

Jobs for Mexicans in Mexico
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1015 Nov 27, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Shocking... yet you blame the union for the company failing about management ran the debt to two billion dollars.
Tell us why it is the union's fault for the two billion dollar hole.
Explain your thinking that the people ruining the company insist the unions cut their pay IN HALF while they increased their pay- some over 300 percent, including the CEO who was making $2.5 million but it is the fault of the bakers making less than $30,000.
Because it sure looks like you are blaming the union no matter what.
Management didn't close the company--the unions and their workers did. How their finances went is another discussion. But when we talk who is at fault for this closure (not their debt or financial situation) then we have nobody else to blame but the unions. Who knows? Maybe if they went for it, those managers would have been able to retool and get the company back on it's feet insuring that in the future, such wage and benefits might be met.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1016 Nov 27, 2012
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting President Clinton, NAFTA MEANS JOBS, AMERICAN JOBS, I WOULDN'T SIGN IT, IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
I've said this before and I'll say it again... Clinton failed us miserably on that. But let us not forget that the bill was designed by a conservative congress. Clinton signed it as a compromise for something else and he lied through his teeth to the American people about it. I blame BOTH sides for this mess.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#1017 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
NAFTA has driven American workers' salaries down due to foreign competition. There's just no way around that. I don't know if unions would agree with my hypothetical compromise, but I feel like it would be a "meet half way" thing. Not great for everybody, but not terrible either.
As far as not being able to find a job that pays decently from a current job... there are more and more low wage and/or temp jobs on the market as decent jobs are disappearing. As best as I can determine, this is due to the downward pressure being exerted on wages by foreign competition. There simply aren't enough decent paying jobs for everybody to even live lower middle class anymore. I'm talking LOWER middle class... basic house, car that runs (NOT a new car), utilities, a decently balanced diet and medical insurance. Nothing fancy at all. It's ridiculous when someone works for a living and they cant even afford those basics. This is not due to failure on the part of a huge percentage of people... it's due to bad policy.
That may be your stance, and I can respect that. But perhaps before you hold on to that thought, read this short article by Dr. Walter Williams. He sheds some light on trades in this country:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/william...
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1018 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well thank you very much. We seem to have a civil discourse between us.
I just want to say that the housing bubble started back in Clinton's day. He hired a very young and inexperienced guy to run HUD. HUD is the overseer of Fanny and Freddy.
Andrew Cuomo decided to institute 0% down with little or no credit checks. You had people with not a pot to pss in or a window to throw it out of getting home loans. I know because I lost several good tenants with that new policy.
Those bad loans went to Wall Street where they were bundled with some good loans and given the AAA rating by the government. The loans were sold off and that's when the sht hit the fan. Nothing major took place early because at the end of Clinton's term, economic activity began to slow. When Bush got the economy going again, that's when house sales went on a frenzy.
So what the banks did was provide those loans in accordance with government standards, and sold those loans off to Fanny--Freddy and just about anybody else who could dump them on Wall Street.
So we can point to this regulation or that deregulation, but the truth of the matter is that you can't have bad securities to sell unless you have those bad securities to begin with. The object is to stop those bad loans so they could never make it to Wall Street with or without regulation.
Exactly. It was a failure of both the government (party lines notwithstanding) and the banks.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1019 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Living in a steel town,
I guess claiming you lived in a steel town should override the fact that steel was mismanaged by the companies that owned them on top of Reagan pushing large portions of the business to Japan and failures of all American steel companies to upgrade to the demands of modern steel making- replacing antique furnace for example with oxygen stoked furnaces or spending hundreds of millions of dollars on office buildings that were built- instead of square- in twisting towers so more executives got corner offices.

The hundreds of millions of dollars flush down the drain wasn't the fault of the steel workers, no a single one of them who made anything close to what the managers running the company made.

I understand: it is al3ways the unions' fault.

Like at Hostess: the men and women making less than $30K ran the company into the ground, not the managers making hundreds of thousands and even millions.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1020 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
Clinton signed it as a compromise for something else and he lied through his teeth to the American people about it.
He didn't lie at all, and it was and is a Republican bill, and of course: it was Reagan's idea in the first place.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1021 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 was in its second bankrupcy and of course this c/s m/f liar wants to blame the union for - how dare they - not taking the SECOND pay cut which would mean their salaries were cut in HALF.

Of course, the HEDGE FUND managers increase their salaries as the company was circling the drain, and even arranged BONUSES which they are fighting to get as we speak while they were using the union pension funds to keep the company afloat.

Who spent the $2 billion dollars?

Not the unions.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#1022 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be your stance, and I can respect that. But perhaps before you hold on to that thought, read this short article by Dr. Walter Williams. He sheds some light on trades in this country:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/william...
Interesting article. Good points offered. Thank you. I wonder what we will do as technology takes over more manufacturing roles. We obviously won't be able to generate office and medical field jobs for everybody. I think we're going to be in a real pickle... much worse than the current one. The thing is, people are going to have to survive one way or the other. If they don't have jobs, they'll resort to crime. And we can't lock THAT many people up or IT will collapse the economy. It actually costs more to keep someone in prison than to keep them on welfare. The future is scary. We really need to find a better method of birth control.

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
News Man, 21, fatally stabbed after argument in Bedford (May '10) 4 hr jackie 22
Twin Peaks 19 hr Sugardaddy 2
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 22 Fart 798
Review: Mayor's Hotline Apr 20 buttercake 1
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Apr 18 Fart Smoke 633
Review: Mary M. Robb, DDS Apr 16 Frank Reedy 1
euless police power abuse Apr 15 Big bad john 5
More from around the web

Euless People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]