No more Twinkies - Hostess out of business
 

Tell the kiddies they can thank the unions for this one.

I'm sure the First Lady is happy - another evil dessert maker is gone, along with 18,500 jobs.

I go on a diet and Hostess goes bankruptcy. Coincidence, I think not.:D

Clearly this is a twisted method of firing their workers.

Not that I care one way or the other.

Over/under on the re-introduction of the "New Twinkie"...3 mos..it won't sell and they will then bring back the Twinkie Classic..just like Coke did;)

there's no way hostess will be out of business. i'm sure this is just a ploy. or maybe it'll end up sold. regardless, that brand will continue to exist.

Absolutely. The brand will exist as it is still worth something and will be sold - through liquidation. One of the competitors like Tastykake will buy it.

But this is an opportunity for the top brass to cash out, leave this union wrangling behind. The buyer of the brand(s) will be able to set up shop in a right-to-work state and escape unions entirely, modernize equipment instead of the 82 year old baking stuff that might still power Hostess' operations.

Hostess is indeed going out of business. The CEO said "It's over" this morning. There was no further pleading for workers to come back. The parasites have killed the host.

hostess has been having issues for years. there's no way it's just the unions fault in this. i think they've restructured a couple times just in the last few years.
the strike might be the last straw, but it's certainly not the only straw.

You know Joey... If it were up to him there would be no Unions, Minimum Wage or Regulations of any kind.

Fly with the angels.

:tro:

How long before all of this factory equipment shows up in Mexico and we get our Twinkies back?

Hope they sprinkle them with jalapeno sauce...yummy..:tro:

History of the Twinkie :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hef0gCnTHxE

Better chance that they will be sprinkled with cocaine.

Maybe - why would that happen? Oh yeaaahhh... that union thing...

18000 jobs gone. How many of those people voted Democrat, at their union's urging? Worked out real well.

I doubt how they voted has any impact whatsoever to their current situation.

Not a direct result - no - the timeline is too short (10 days). Unless the givebacks were expanded to offset ObamaCare expenses, but even that seems too soon.

But, does it not cause one to question their political alignment? The same union that told you to vote Democratic is the one that lost you your job.

i'm not a big union fan. i think some of the unions have lost touch with why they ever began.
that said, how many people think there's a possible correlation between lower union membership and lower wages? it's something to consider. there was an article a few months back that said as unions have gone downhilll, so have wages on average.
they aren't the entire solution, nor are they the entire problem. henry ford operated under the belief that the employee should make enough to buy the product he's making. in some places, that holds true. others, not at all.

that's a hell of a leap to make.

Unions are a very convenient straw man to absorb the discontent people feel during hard times.

They primarily exist these days to insure a fair wage, adherence to schedules, and healthcare.

Everything that was bargained for years ago and have been history since the '90's (healthcare for life, cradle to grave healthcare for immediate family, lucrative pensions, etc.) have really nothing to do with the current work climate, the folks footing the bill for the last generations of these perks are lucky to be able to keep their union jobs (witness today).

The fact is, that unless and until we lower our standards to that of a 3rd world country, we will never be competitive with the 3rd world for those manufacturing jobs.

And it is spreading well beyond the lower middle class. Engineers graduating from college can't get entry-level jobs because there are qualified engineers with experience ready to do the work remotely in countries like Turkey, Singapore, etc. for a fraction of what an entry-level salary is here.

Blaming unions and union workers in particular for the "downfall of the economy" is simplistic and misguided. in my opinion.

It'll go even farther; just wait. A friend of mine who works in the legal profession told me that his law firm is testing out not assigning secretaries to the lower level lawyers; instead, they will email documents and things they need done to a floor of people they will never actually interact with. He thinks they'll eventually look to ship that sort of job overseas, too, or to a state with much lower wages.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the politicians need to give these companies some type of big incentive to stay here. Maybe companies that don't outsource should get big tax breaks. I don't know what else can be done.

States like West Virginia are absolutely booming, relatively speaking. Companies realize they can find an English speaking, young, energetic workforce that appreciates the work and is willing to perform a lot of the administrative tasks that can be farmed out of the larger metropolitan areas at a fraction of the costs.
Incorporate real-time documentation processing and it's a no-brainer - cost-wise.

The larger issue I have is that even some of the most higher-level, intricate, detailed work is going off-shore. I work for an international corporation that has call centers all over the world. Typically the highest level of support resides here, but we're seeing even those jobs moving to the Philippines and India.

Without sounding obstructionist, I think the answer lies in holding the companies that make a pretty penny selling their goods and services in the USA accountable to paying that back - not by increased corporate taxes, but with a requirement to keep decent jobs here.

You want to sell your products in the US? Then you need to be required to maintain a commitment to the country by employing our labor. Period. Not excusing the practice by semi-enforcing some sort of back handed excise tax that can be manipulated by politicians, but an actual federal mandate.

Considering that these same corporations basically own the legislature, I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know, either. One of the tough things is that in the mid-20th century, we were the only first-world nation that hadn't had the ever-loving sh*t blown out of it by WW2, so we had an edge on the rest of the world. Businesses had to hire workers here because it was the only option, and so workers could demand a middle-class salary because employers didn't have any other option. And union workers drove up everyone else's wages to the middle class.

I assume businesses get to claim employee salaries as business expenses- maybe not permit salaries paid to overseas employees to be counted as expenses. Though there's nothing to stop corporations from just incorporating outside of the country.

I've had so many friends lose jobs to overseas firms. It's really frustrating. And it's not like the jobs were even that good to start with. One hadn't had health insurance in years, and it wasn't until his family got poor enough to qualify for Medicaid that he was able to see a doctor, and found out he was suffering from glaucoma. Lovely.

That said, here's a piece saying the failure of Hostess is the free market at work:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the...-a-good-thing/

And a timeline of the Hostess failure:

Money not reinvested.....that tells the tale. A few got rich, everyone else gets the shaft

That actually has a lot to do with the fact that young lawyers have typing and computer skills. Dictation, in the law firm setting, is becoming more scarce.

You mean we should give tax breaks to companies that use all the loopholes to avoid taxes in the first place? And what makes you think the extra money they get from those tax breaks will not go directly into the pockets of Execs? What you are suggesting is paying ransom to those that are holding our country hostage. You and Joey always have the same answer to everything. Lower Taxes and it will create jobs. What is it going to take for you to see that has not worked for many years. Bush lowered taxes and we hemmoraged jobs for nearly a decade. We have 2 choices here. Lower our standard of living to be that of a third world country or Penalize companies with taxes that ship jobs overseas and make the penalty substansial enough that the economics of shipping jobs out of the country doesn't work. Since those that make the rules are owned by the corporate America this has no chance in hell of ever happening. We have a better chance of another American Revolution than our elected officials standing up to corporations.

:tro:....Too bad we are governed by the Golden Rule - He who has the gold makes the rules..

i thought it was too many guys on the lines were eating more twinkies than packing ?

This Ned Beatty scene from the 1976 movie Network covers the world we live in..Corporations rule:eek:


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...CC7EF8&first=0

Absolutely, but they still use them for a lot of formatting and editing. The thing that's a change here is that they aren't even on the same floor with the lawyers; they are on a different floor and won't be seen. It's an easy step from that to not in the city or the country, entirely.

Rich partners, of course, will continue to have secretaries because they want to have someone to organize their day for them. And so it has always been- you're rich, you get to have servants.

It's not about being rich and getting the "servants" it's about having an established and busy practice (something the young and/or new attorney would not have) that requires one or more people to help you manage it.

I was simply saying that there needs to be some type of incentive for these companies to stay here. You could raise taxes on companies that outsource. You could lower taxes on companies that don't outsource. I don't care how they do it. They just need to do something that makes it beneficial for companies to stay here and not outsource.

Sorry; I'm being a bit irreverent here, though I know secretaries who tend to do a lot of personal assistant-type work at their jobs, even though it's not what they were hired to do. The original instance I was citing was a company that is changing previous policy, continuing to provide employees who do document work for the lawyers, but instead of having them on the same floor as the lawyers, is now moving them to a different floor, and all communication will be via phone or email. My friend who works there said they think it's a very small step to moving those document workers out of state or out of country, and there go more middle-class jobs (my friend gives generally high marks to the firm, saying it's a good one to work for, other than wondering if they're looking to move staff off premises)

My point was it was the blue collar manufacturing jobs, then the tech jobs, and now the off-shoring is moving into the white collar clerical jobs as companies figure out that more and more things can be done long distance.

Money "saved" is often not "reinvested" because it isnt a tangible asset. If the company was losing money than "saving" money is simply lowering expenses though that doesnt mean the company isnt still losing money.

The raise the taxes theory on outsourcing companies is a losing solution. Many corporations will just set up more foreign networks, subsidiaries, divisions, etc which will of course drive up consumer prices which of course hurts that same middle class that everyone wants to prop up. The reality is that there is a reason that jobs are outsourced and for the most part it is profits. Punishing business may simply lead to business relocating with more stringent regulations being a factor as well. Corporate tax rates in the US are high already compared to other industrialized countries despite the rhetoric to the contrary. Hell we see states undercutting other states by offering tax inducments and other incentives to get business to relocate within the US.

The best way to reduce outsourcing is grow our own economy because the worse the growth is the more appealing outsourcing becomes. Of course that isnt easy to do especially when the govt appears to be wanting to enforce growth prohibiting practices and the global economy is still so shaky (our own issues contributing to that as well)

"Grow our Economy" . Such a simple solution. Problem is how can you grow your economy when those that purchase goods and services that cause the growth dont have any money? Why? Because their jobs which provide them with money have been shipped to The Third world. One comapnies wages are another companies revenue.

With much respect, your policies of reducing taxes has not worked for many a year. With all due respect you continue to be locked in a 1980's time warp repeating the same tired mantra.

These are extrodinary times and require extrodinary measures. Playing nice with those that have hijacked capitialism require thinking not found in a 1950's Economics textbook which most all of us have been operating from. But as I said before those that make the rules are owned by those that benefit from the rules so we are stymied. It will require a violent uprising for this country to ever get back on track.

Well, apparently while Hostess was failing, the CEOs were making sure they got theirs before 18,000 people lost their jobs:

http://gawker.com/5961444/dont-worry...pany-collapsed

I love how the failure of businesses is always blamed on greedy unions (how dare they expect their employers keep their end of their contracts!) but it's just shrugged off when the guys at the top loot the company on the way out.