Unions force Hostess into bankruptcy. 18000 to lose jobs. No more Twinkies

[thekev]

Originally Posted by yg17

They'll be back - some other company will buy the brand from Hostess in bankruptcy. Like I said before, it was a profitable product run into the ground by bad management. And with the renewed popularity of Hostess products now that they're gone (albeit temporarily) I wouldn't be shocked to see a bidding war between multiple prospective buyers.

This isn't even the first time they've gone bankrupt.

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

I guess, but taste-wise you can't really say they're "disgusting". It's hard to call any sweet snack disgusting.

Bleh I find some sweets to taste disgusting.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by thekev

This isn't even the first time they've gone bankrupt.

Those were Chapter 11 bankruptcies(reorganization). This would be Hostess's final bankruptcy as this will be Chapter 7( liquidation)

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

God forbid America suffers more job losses huh? Too bad you didn’t work for hostess and now looking for a new job. This is serious and your making it out to be a joke.

What saddens me here is that based on this post, you carry the perception that jobs are more important than a person's health. Yet you, and everyone else needs to have their health in good order to even be able to work a job.

If you honestly value jobs more than one's health, that is really really sad.

BL.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by bradl

What saddens me here is that based on this post, you carry the perception that jobs are more important than a person's health. Yet you, and everyone else needs to have their health in good order to even be able to work a job.

If you honestly value jobs more than one's health, that is really really sad.

BL.

Are you kidding me? What’s sad is 18,000 people are now unemployed. Here is an idea. Taco Bell, McDonalds, KFC, In & Out and so on. Why not close those chains down and lay off even more people? Give me a break. We as Americans have a choice to eat what we like. Our body is our temple. If you decide to get fat because your addicted to unhealthy food, then so be it.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Are you kidding me? What’s sad is 18,000 people are now unemployed. Here is an idea. Taco Bell, McDonalds, KFC, In & Out and so on. Why not close those chains down and lay off even more people? Give me a break. We as Americans have a choice to eat what we like. Our body is our temple. If you decide to get fat because your addicted to unhealthy food, then so be it.

Thank you so much for proving my point. It is as if you think that the jobs are more important just to improve the company's bottom line. Yet without healthy people to work those jobs you still have a bottom line, while those who don't have their health right become dead corpses.

McDonalds? In-n-Out? It's obvious you are not a business owner. And yes, FYI, I am. I own a business that specializes in business systems. Both Ray Kroc, and Harry and Esther Snyder (and their sons Rich and Guy) knew from the start that it is the people who make the business, not the corporation, for without the people, none of them would have been where they were. In the book Beyond the Arches, Kroc mentioned that after buying the rights from the McDonald brothers, that those that signed up with him as franchise had made and became millionaires before he made his first million dollars. Why? because he knew that the system and the people running his system were a lot more important than his bottom line.

Something you and the CEOs and executive board at Hostess seem to have forgotten. Jobs mean nothing if you don't have people healthy enough to work them.

BL.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Are you kidding me? What’s sad is 18,000 people are now unemployed. Here is an idea. Taco Bell, McDonalds, KFC, In & Out and so on. Why not close those chains down and lay off even more people? Give me a break. We as Americans have a choice to eat what we like. Our body is our temple. If you decide to get fat because your addicted to unhealthy food, then so be it.

Michelle Obama has made this part of her mission as First Lady - eliminating all junk food from the American diet.

[Arran]

Forbes characterize this sorry affair as management incompetence, pure and simple:

By constantly trying to defend and extend its old business, leadership at Hostess killed the company. But not realizing changing trends in foods made their products irrelevant – if not obsolete – and not changing Hostess leaders allowed margins to disintegrate. Rather than developing new products which would be more marketable, priced for higher margin and provide growth that covered all costs Hostess leadership kept trying to financial engineer a solution to make their horse and buggy competitive with automobiles.

Full article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...ement-failure/

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Most revealing you have nothing to say about Management's role in the Twinky crisis. So Management can do no wrong, huh?

I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.

You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.

Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.

You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.

Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.

So the only thing management did wrong was not busting the union a long time ago? So do you blame Detroit's problems on the UAW? How about the airlines?

A company not doing well due to management running the company under from their bad decisions I guess is impossible.....

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.

You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.

Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.

This is the only fault you can come up with? Please don't say you are a CEO.

Originally Posted by quagmire

A company not doing well due to management running the company under from their bad decisions I guess is impossible.....

Most reasonable neutral observers would recognize, the various entities of the company and acknowledge they are all flawed, a fact demonstrated frequently. However, for thewitt to do this would interfere with his comfortably biased notions of how human beings function, who are deserving, and who are not.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.

You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.

Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.

This is ridiculously myopic. Their brand has remained relatively static for decades. Unions have agreed to pay cuts on more than one occasion. There's only so long you'll be able to prolong the life of such a company if they can't locate new areas of growth for their brand to offset changes in dietary trends.

Originally Posted by thewitt

Michelle Obama has made this part of her mission as First Lady - eliminating all junk food from the American diet.

How would that be a bad thing? People do sometimes buy junk food that is marketed as healthy. I hate that, but in terms of cutting actual junk food consumption, what is bad about that? You can't tell people to eat **** just to keep these companies in business.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by thekev

This is ridiculously myopic. Their brand has remained relatively static for decades. Unions have agreed to pay cuts on more than one occasion. There's only so long you'll be able to prolong the life of such a company if they can't locate new areas of growth for their brand to offset changes in dietary trends.



How would that be a bad thing? People do sometimes buy junk food that is marketed as healthy. I hate that, but in terms of cutting actual junk food consumption, what is bad about that? You can't tell people to eat **** just to keep these companies in business.

Because its NOT the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

Man you guys really don't get it.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Because its NOT the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

Man you guys really don't get it.

I'm sure you have no problem, though, with the government telling women what we can and can't do with our bodies or who we can marry.

And if you can't see the benefits, financially and otherwise, of making Americans healthier, you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Obviously you don't realize how much our taxes pay to take care of people who have eaten themselves and smoked themselves and drank themselves into health problems.

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I'm sure you have no problem, though, with the government telling women what we can and can't do with our bodies or who we can marry.

And if you can't see the benefits, financially and otherwise, of making Americans healthier, you probably shouldn't be participating in this discussion. Obviously you don't realize how much our taxes pay to take care of people who have eaten themselves and smoked themselves and drank themselves into health problems.

Sooooooo, you would want the government not to tell you who you can marry or tell women what they can't or can do with their bodies, but you want them to tell us what we can eat because it is costing us tax payers money?

I am all for the company going under. They miss managed the company. Sure they had union issues, but the bottom line is the miss managed the companies money. Bye bye.

I like their food, but I won't miss them.

[noisycats]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Michelle Obama has made this part of her mission as First Lady - eliminating all junk food from the American diet.

Just one more reason to love the Obamas; encouraging healthy diets and exercise.

Name one piece of legislation she has passed eliminating any junk food, let alone all junk food...

[thekev]

Originally Posted by thewitt

Because its NOT the business of the government to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

Man you guys really don't get it.

She campaigned against the consumption of junk food, as it's consumed in excess here. Prior to that, the cultural shift away from fast food and candy items has been on going for years. Aside from a few edge cases like New York, it's not actually banned. 7-11 used to sell 64 oz big gulps, even in California. They simply don't exist here anymore even though there's no law against them. It is arguably necessary to ensure availability of healthy food including fruits and vegetables. It's not a bad thing to include nutritional information so that consumers can make an informed decision. I don't see how speaking out against something is telling people what they can and cannot eat. When it comes to things like school cafeteria items, that's a different issue. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying to provide junk food to kids, especially on a regular basis. It's probably an issue of cost more than anything, but I always avoided it growing up.

Originally Posted by thewitt

I believe management should have busted the union decades ago, but they did not, so labor costs are way out of line.

You guys complain of management bonuses, but the Union demands would gradually increase payroll by 120 million dollars a year over the next 5 years.

Hostess stands no chance of surviving that.

This wouldn't have solved the root issue of a stagnant brand that hasn't evolved in decades. When they cite increasing snack competition, they don't mention anything regarding market growth. How much more are they really going to tap out of the US junk food market?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by rhett7660

Sooooooo, you would want the government not to tell you who you can marry or tell women what they can't or can do with their bodies, but you want them to tell us what we can eat because it is costing us tax payers money?

I am all for the company going under. They miss managed the company. Sure they had union issues, but the bottom line is the miss managed the companies money. Bye bye.

I like their food, but I won't miss them.

noisycats beat me to it - but I think you're mistaking encouraging a healthier population with the governement saying what we can/can't eat. Maybe I've not been paying attention, but is Michelle Obama going around passing laws against eating McDonald's?

I also don't think it's a bad thing that schools are encouraged to feed our children healthier foods. Do you?

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

noisycats beat me to it - but I think you're mistaking encouraging a healthier population with the governement saying what we can/can't eat. Maybe I've not been paying attention, but is Michelle Obama going around passing laws against eating McDonald's?

I also don't think it's a bad thing that schools are encouraged to feed our children healthier foods. Do you?

No I don't not at all, I think that is great, but once outside of the school do you think they should limit or say what we can or cannot eat or drink?

I am playing devils advocate here. I know there are laws already in place that say you can't drink alcohol till you are 21 etc. However after that should there be a law saying sorry, you can't drink any more because it is costing us money?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by rhett7660

No I don't not at all, I think that is great, but once outside of the school do you think they should limit or say what we can or cannot eat, or drink or smoke?

When has Michelle Obama limited what we can and cannot eat, drink, or smoke? Again, I think you are mistaking encouraging a healthier lifestyle with the government intruding in our dining decisions.

[robanga]

Originally Posted by rhett7660

Sooooooo, you would want the government not to tell you who you can marry or tell women what they can't or can do with their bodies, but you want them to tell us what we can eat because it is costing us tax payers money?

Bingo - The picking and choosing of what some people want out of their government amazes me in its contradictions.

It reminds me of how many people decry chains like Walmart as being evil and killing main street businesses but then happily go online and buy things from Amazon.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by rhett7660

No I don't not at all, I think that is great, but once outside of the school do you think they should limit or say what we can or cannot eat?

In what ways do they? Beyond encouragement or labeling so you can make an informed decision for yourself?

B

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by robanga

Bingo - The picking and choosing of what some people want out of their government amazes me in its contradictions.

It reminds me of how many people decry chains like Walmart as being evil and killing main street businesses but then happily go online and buy things from Amazon.

Who's picking and choosing?

When did I say I was in favor of the government deciding what we can and can't eat?

Encouraging a healthier lifestyle is not the same as making laws against eating junk food. And if you look at it fiscally (as many like to do), encouraging a healthier lifestyle would also have positive financial benefits to us all.

[rhett7660]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

When has Michelle Obama limited what we can and cannot eat, drink, or smoke? Again, I think you are mistaking encouraging a healthier lifestyle with the government intruding in our dining decisions.

Encouraging is different than the government stepping in and forcing their encouragement.

I never said Michelle has done that. That was another poster. I was merely commenting on your comment of government limiting what you can do with your body, yet you are for having the government limit what we can put into our body. That is all.

----------

Originally Posted by balamw

In what ways do they? Beyond encouragement or labeling so you can make an informed decision for yourself?

B

No, I am agreeing with encouragement. However I don't like it if they pass a law saying what I can't or can eat or drink. That is all.

I am all for encouragement.....labels.....that is all good.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by rhett7660

I am playing devils advocate here. I know there are laws already in place that say you can't drink alcohol till you are 21 etc. However after that should there be a law saying sorry, you can't drink any more because it is costing us money?

Absolutely not. However (and this could be it's own thread), I'm not sure I believe that my taxes should be paying for the healthcare (through medicare/medicaid/higher insurance premiums) for those who have chosen to eat, drink, or smoke themselves into bad health. They are welcome to do what they want to their bodies, but why should I pay for the end result?

[robanga]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Who's picking and choosing?

When did I say I was in favor of the government deciding what we can and can't eat?

Encouraging a healthier lifestyle is not the same as making laws against eating junk food. And if you look at it fiscally (as many like to do), encouraging a healthier lifestyle would also have positive financial benefits to us all.

I agree with you on the encouragement of healthier lifestyles. I remember the Presidential Fitness tests as a kid I was speaking more to the legislation of healthy such as no big gulps, outlawing happy meal attempts and all that silliness. Not disagreeing with your post.