- CuteOldGuy
- 11-19-2012, 07:32 PM
So what's the solution, BL? Government control of business?
- i'va biggen
- 11-19-2012, 08:55 PM
Follow the money...
- BigLouie
- 11-19-2012, 09:47 PM
So what's the solution, BL? Government control of business? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThe only real solution is to keep your company healthy. In Hostess case it suffered because it's product line became weak because people changed their eating habits. And just like in nature where the predators take down the old, the weak and the sick it is the same in business. The predators attacked and now Hostess is having a tough go of it. It is not correct to lay this all on unions, it is just a deadly combination of circumstances.
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-19-2012, 10:24 PM
But BL, weren't you complaining about the CEO's taking the money and running? You can't have it both ways. If the union had capitulated to the recommendation of the Bankruptcy Court, they'd still have their jobs. No, BL. The company closed because the union was stupid.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-20-2012, 03:15 AM
The Adieu Haiku
"So no more Twinkies.
No! Oh the humanity!
I'll miss Ding Dongs too."
Peter King
"So no more Twinkies.
No! Oh the humanity!
I'll miss Ding Dongs too."
Peter King
- LexusLover
- 11-20-2012, 04:33 AM
- LexusLover
- 11-20-2012, 04:49 AM
It is not correct to lay this all on unions, it is just a deadly combination of circumstances. Originally Posted by BigLouieBL, in recent times "we" have seen too many instances (one is too many for me) in which unions have refused to adjust their "benefits" and "incomes" to fit the needs of the downturn in the economy ... the latest example was in Chicago with the teachers. The school district could not afford to build enough classrooms to accommodate all the teachers and there were too many teachers for the existing number of classrooms. The union "revolted" .. and struck when the district sought to reduce the number of teachers. The union wanted people to be paid who were not working! There was no Republican at the helm on that deal ... so all the ridiculous names don't fit.
The typical response was seen with the Sandy cleanup ... to get electricity back on for those victims of the storm. Non-union linesmen were not allowed to work in the effected areas ...
Mentioning the Post Office is almost redundant and repetitive. A financial disaster.
If Twinkies is losing money because people are eating more sensibly what's the answer ... reduce overhead. If one is selling fewer "Twinkies" then you need fewer bakers, packers, and truck drivers ...
.. there are companies that offer their employees an opportunity to continue working at a somewhat reduced hourly rate with benefits continued in order to provide them with an income and benefits during tough times with the understanding that when things get better the salaries will go back up and the employees will be retained. Employees agree to that arrangement ... unless they don't want to work or they are already disgruntled with the company.
If one wants one good reason jobs are "outsourced" its excessively high wages, and in major manufacturing and service businesses that means .... unions.
In Texas we remain fortunate. We will continue to attract businesses and continue to have competitive job opportunities without the unionized restraints of a pecking order for filling the available slots regulated by "the union boss" whose nephey Arny gets to the top of the hiring list first.
- Guest040616
- 11-20-2012, 05:01 AM
Loren Steffy from chron.com jumps into the Twinkie debate!
Who killed the Twinkie?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Many Americans approach Thanksgiving this year with a heavy heart. Oh, there will still be turkey, there will be stuffing, gravy, green bean casserole and, yes, there will be pie. But there will be no nipping into the pantry Thanksgiving night for the how-could-you-possibly-be-hungry snack, the nightcap of HoHos. (If this didn’t happen in your household then perhaps you never had teenagers.)
While nutritionists everywhere are no doubt breaking out their dancing shoes for the Twinkie funeral, a piece of Americana died with the announcement last week that Hostess Brands of Irving will cease operations and liquidate. The decision came after thousands of union workers rejected management’s latest contract offer and went on strike, crippling the company.
Workers were unhappy with a contract that would have cut their pay yet again, a move that followed management’s efforts to slash pension benefits. The company owed about $950 million to its worker pensions, which were unfunded to the tune of $2 billion.
While much of the backlash for Friday’s announcement of Hostess’s liquidation has been directed at the unions, the strike was merely the final nail in a well-hammered coffin.
Hostess had been operating in bankruptcy since January, its second reorganization in less than a decade. The company faced a changing market in which customers began to worry more about things like empty calories and ingredients that sounded more like they were mixed up in a chemistry lab than a kitchen. While the company still sold $68 million worth of Twinkies this year, Hostess’s sales have been flat or down slightly in recent years.
Management, too, deserves some of the blame. It tried to take its turn at the trough, padding executives’ paychecks ahead of the bankruptcy filing. While those pay packages were later rescinded, it didn’t set an amiable tone for talks with creditors or labor groups. It also spoke to a far bigger problem that plagued Hostess: a lack of innovation. The company for years simply relied on its well-established brands, ignoring rising consumer concerns about unhealthy snacks and mounting competition from other snack makers.
So blame management, blame labor, and blame consumers, but while we’re at it, let’s also blame Congress. Since 1934, Congress supported sugar tariffs that force U.S. companies to pay twice the global market price for sugar. This, by the way, also factors into the economics of ethanol, which could be made more cheaply from sugar if it weren’t for the import tariffs. The sugar lobby, though, is so powerful that, as the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, “when Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked the unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.”
As is so often the case when a company fails, there’s plenty of blame to go around in Hostess’s demise. As for the fate of the Thanksgiving HoHo, fear not, Twinkie faithful. To help pay for the company’s liquidation, Hostess will no doubt sell its brands and recipes to another company that will keep churning out the snacks we need to survive the zombie apocalypse.
Who killed the Twinkie?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Many Americans approach Thanksgiving this year with a heavy heart. Oh, there will still be turkey, there will be stuffing, gravy, green bean casserole and, yes, there will be pie. But there will be no nipping into the pantry Thanksgiving night for the how-could-you-possibly-be-hungry snack, the nightcap of HoHos. (If this didn’t happen in your household then perhaps you never had teenagers.)
While nutritionists everywhere are no doubt breaking out their dancing shoes for the Twinkie funeral, a piece of Americana died with the announcement last week that Hostess Brands of Irving will cease operations and liquidate. The decision came after thousands of union workers rejected management’s latest contract offer and went on strike, crippling the company.
Workers were unhappy with a contract that would have cut their pay yet again, a move that followed management’s efforts to slash pension benefits. The company owed about $950 million to its worker pensions, which were unfunded to the tune of $2 billion.
While much of the backlash for Friday’s announcement of Hostess’s liquidation has been directed at the unions, the strike was merely the final nail in a well-hammered coffin.
Hostess had been operating in bankruptcy since January, its second reorganization in less than a decade. The company faced a changing market in which customers began to worry more about things like empty calories and ingredients that sounded more like they were mixed up in a chemistry lab than a kitchen. While the company still sold $68 million worth of Twinkies this year, Hostess’s sales have been flat or down slightly in recent years.
Management, too, deserves some of the blame. It tried to take its turn at the trough, padding executives’ paychecks ahead of the bankruptcy filing. While those pay packages were later rescinded, it didn’t set an amiable tone for talks with creditors or labor groups. It also spoke to a far bigger problem that plagued Hostess: a lack of innovation. The company for years simply relied on its well-established brands, ignoring rising consumer concerns about unhealthy snacks and mounting competition from other snack makers.
So blame management, blame labor, and blame consumers, but while we’re at it, let’s also blame Congress. Since 1934, Congress supported sugar tariffs that force U.S. companies to pay twice the global market price for sugar. This, by the way, also factors into the economics of ethanol, which could be made more cheaply from sugar if it weren’t for the import tariffs. The sugar lobby, though, is so powerful that, as the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, “when Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked the unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.”
As is so often the case when a company fails, there’s plenty of blame to go around in Hostess’s demise. As for the fate of the Thanksgiving HoHo, fear not, Twinkie faithful. To help pay for the company’s liquidation, Hostess will no doubt sell its brands and recipes to another company that will keep churning out the snacks we need to survive the zombie apocalypse.
- LexusLover
- 11-20-2012, 05:15 AM
It's not just the tariffs ... Mexican sugar could be sold in this country for just slightly more than it is sold in Mexico to the consumers, but years ago this country guarantied world bank loans made for the development of the sugar industry there and the contracts to repay the loans in sugar priced the sugar at slightly more than double of the domestic market in Mexico. The sugar "czars' in Mexico laughed at the U.S. for allowing "U.S. housewives" to pay back their loans. The tariffs artificially maintain the import prices at the higher level ... and that protects payment for the loans as much as it does the U.S. industry.
So blame management, blame labor, and blame consumers, but while we’re at it, let’s also blame Congress. Since 1934, Congress supported sugar tariffs that force U.S. companies to pay twice the global market price for sugar. This, by the way, also factors into the economics of ethanol, which could be made more cheaply from sugar if it weren’t for the import tariffs. The sugar lobby, though, is so powerful that, as the Christian Science Monitor pointed out, “when Hostess had to cut costs to stay in business, it picked the unions, not the sugar lobby, to fight.” Originally Posted by bigtex
- Guest040616
- 11-20-2012, 05:25 AM
It's not just the tariffs ... Mexican sugar could be sold in this country for just slightly more than it is sold in Mexico to the consumers, but years ago this country guarantied world bank loans made for the development of the sugar industry there and the contracts to repay the loans in sugar priced the sugar at slightly more than double of the domestic market in Mexico. The sugar "czars' in Mexico laughed at the U.S. for allowing "U.S. housewives" to pay back their loans. The tariffs artificially maintain the import prices at the higher level ... and that protects payment for the loans as much as it does the U.S. industry. Originally Posted by LexusLoverNot that I would expect LL's pointy lil' noggin' to comprehend but the (main) point of the (entire) chron.com article is:
You can't just fault the unions for the demise of the Twinkies. There's plenty of blame to go around!
Being able to understand the "big picture" is not on of LL's strengths!
- LexusLover
- 11-20-2012, 05:36 AM
Not that I would expect your pointy little noggin' to understand but the point of the (entire) referenced article is:Two things BT-Chihuaua, I understand aspects of the article without the need for your direction or the article (I have been personally familiar with the sugar industry and others in Mexico for instance), and I am certain there are management cuts that can be made in any business, including mine, that helps protect jobs and job opportunities.
You can't just fault the unions for the demise of the Twinkies. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around! Originally Posted by bigtex
You and yours twist any silly little notion to make some personal or political point .. with you its more personal with your chicken shit little one liners ... ergo .. you get
the BT-Chihuahua label ...
... annoying yapping on the sidelines while you post other people's ideas from op-ed articles.
- Guest040616
- 11-20-2012, 05:42 AM
I understand aspects of the article without the need for your direction or the article (I have been personally familiar with the sugar industry and others in Mexico for instance) Originally Posted by LexusLoverYep, just like you also fully understood there were still WMD's in Iraq as late as the ill fated spring of 2003.
Same story, different verse: LL knows everything! No one else knows anything! It's as simple as that!
That's LL's story and he's stickin' to it.
- LexusLover
- 11-20-2012, 05:50 AM
- Guest040616
- 11-20-2012, 05:54 AM
- i'va biggen
- 11-20-2012, 07:25 AM
Mgmt and the union have talks today if no agreement is reached court tomorrow...