The twinkie thread

[green-lantern]

I think we need a thread for this. It appears to be the perfect example of corporate and union BS. What is wrong with American business? Yeah look here to find that question out.

I didn’t put this in the political area because I don’t want to look at it in that way. If it needs to be moved then mods please do so.

Discuss

[j2k4]

I have eaten a few Twinkies that I enjoyed.

They are not healthful, though.

Neither of these things have the least to do with the issue, however.

I think the relevancies go no further than that the Twinkie is/was an iconic American product, the manufacture of which will no longer take place in the US owing to the dissolution of the parent company, Hostess, due to over-reaching demands of the Baker's union.

Blame has been laid and denied, but the Twinkie will go on, likely manufactured by Bimbo, a Mexican company.

The interest the whole issue generates will only last while the possibility of a shortage of product looms, because no one cares about unions or management once the issues have been decided.

[NickS VR4]

Hostess has been a sinking ship for a while. Both sides to blame. Years ago we had a Hostess store nearby and I used to see them all the time in places like Wawa. Last decade they have been fading away and I see less and less, specifically the pies. It's a shame, they have great brand recognition, seems like they could keep it going if effort was made.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

[sethduncan]

I'm more sad about losing Zinger's.

[UTRacerX9]

There's been a lot on the local news about it since they are headquartered here. Everyone is quick to blame the unions, but Hostess already forced them to renegotiate their contracts in Jan. According to one guy, he was getting paid like $35k after the first negotiation (originally making close to 50k), and now he said his pay would have gone down to $25k if they had accepted. That's a huge cut. Still, the other 12k employees who aren't unionized feel they got screwed by the union members I'm sure.

Also, Hostess' board is now controlled by hedge funds... which are notoriously unwilling to negotiate. They have a dollar amount in mind that they want to see for a profit margin, and if it's 10%, they're not going to budge from that, even if 8% would be something the unions would agree with. They figure they can sell off parts of the company and recoup their investment that way, while not having to pay for workers salaries for a year or more, nor pensions, if there are any.

[93STLTH]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/12723_10151171329301909_406747936_n.jpg


I can't tell you the last time I had a Twinkie, been more than 20 years, I'd guess. But it is an icon, something that almost everyone has had or at least knows what it is. Hate to see things like that go away, even if it's reproduced by another company, it won't be the same.

[IPD]

i blame the unions. period. if you made 50k and would be down to making 25k, then find a different job. bottom line is, you are now out of a job, rather than still being employed and (in your own mind) underpaid. blame yourself for not being able to find work in this shitty economy. it pisses me off because that's MORE government money towards unemployment that could have been prevented.

p.s.

just have little debbies buy them out and that will be the end of it.

[Alex3000gt]

If you haven't purchased their product in the past 10 years, perhaps that is a sign of why they are closing their doors.

[NickS VR4]

If you haven't purchased their product in the past 10 years, perhaps that is a sign of why they are closing their doors.

Perhaps.

Wonder if the unions would allow for more modern equipment that would cause a downsize of staff needed. If you need X volume and have 18k workers with old equipment.... could they keep up with that demand with newer machines and 9k workers?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[beepbeep]

How about the executives and upper management giving themselves 80% raises with the money earmarked for updating equipment and replenishing retirement funds? How about in the bankruptcy papers, they are asking for $5 million for the CEO? How about during the last negotiations, the hedge funds and management wanted the employees to completely relinquish $2 million of their own retirement benefits---just so executives could keep their pay. They are always 2 sides, folks. Easy to blame the unions (hate them, personally) but in this instance, there is more to the story.

[NickS VR4]

How about the executives and upper management giving themselves 80% raises with the money earmarked for updating equipment and replenishing retirement funds? How about in the bankruptcy papers, they are asking for $5 million for the CEO? How about during the last negotiations, the hedge funds and management wanted the employees to completely relinquish $2 million of their own retirement benefits---just so executives could keep their pay. They are always 2 sides, folks. Easy to blame the unions (hate them, personally) but in this instance, there is more to the story.

Like I said, if they updated the equipment, would they need that many workers? Perhaps there was no need for new machines if their work force wouldn't shrink. Then they'd have twice as many workers making twice as much necessary to operate. Just a possibility.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[IPD]

How about the executives and upper management giving themselves 80% raises with the money earmarked for updating equipment and replenishing retirement funds? How about in the bankruptcy papers, they are asking for $5 million for the CEO? How about during the last negotiations, the hedge funds and management wanted the employees to completely relinquish $2 million of their own retirement benefits---just so executives could keep their pay. They are always 2 sides, folks. Easy to blame the unions (hate them, personally) but in this instance, there is more to the story.

no, i don't have sympathy for the unions. if corporate fatf**ks want to be greedy snots and underpay the grunts--then the grunts can leave. the whole idea of a sustainable business model revolves around paying a wage which will get people to do the work you ask of them. if the bigwigs want to pad their wallets and make the model unsustainable in the process--let them. corporations are born and die off all the time. i'm not going to cry about it. when you no longer offer a product in demand, or you don't have a sustainable business model--or both--then bye-bye.

p.s.
this isn't a politics thread, but i will submit that replacing minimum wage with the 50x rule would probably have fixed this.

[green-lantern]

How about the executives and upper management giving themselves 80% raises with the money earmarked for updating equipment and replenishing retirement funds? How about in the bankruptcy papers, they are asking for $5 million for the CEO? How about during the last negotiations, the hedge funds and management wanted the employees to completely relinquish $2 million of their own retirement benefits---just so executives could keep their pay. They are always 2 sides, folks. Easy to blame the unions (hate them, personally) but in this instance, there is more to the story.

I think it was more like 300% for some.

[IPD]

I think it was more like 300% for some.

so hostess has bad management and goes belly-up. meanwhile, little debbies continues to make all of the same products with a different name. why people are crying over it is retarded. if there needs to be more jobs making super-saturated-fat prepackaged-foods, then lil debbies will be hiring. otherwise, the market will shrink to adjust.

jobs that serve an extinct construct aren't legitimate jobs. if you're worried about being replaced by a robot, perhaps you should repair robots for a living.

[bluefox1081]

I'm so shocked :rolleyes3: to see the as expected people placing all the blame on the low-wage workers that do the actual work manufacturing the product, and none of the blame on the wealthy executives that fleeced the company for all its available cash 5 months prior to filing for chapter 11. They totally deserve those bonuses they're asking the court's permission to pay out.

[j2k4]

I'm so shocked :rolleyes3: to see the as expected people placing all the blame on the low-wage workers that do the actual work manufacturing the product, and none of the blame on the wealthy executives that fleeced the company for all its available cash 5 months prior to filing for chapter 11. They totally deserve those bonuses they're asking the court's permission to pay out.

Absolutely agreed as to any fleecing that took place - the perpetrators should be shot and kicked for dying.

That money should have gone to the stockholders.

Hey, I heard too about the union stipulations that bread and Twinkies couldn't share space on the same truck, so there was a lot of redundancy in delivery routes.

Sound dumb to you, too?

[NickS VR4]

Absolutely agreed as to any fleecing that took place - the perpetrators should be shot and kicked for dying.

That money should have gone to the stockholders.

Hey, I heard too about the union stipulations that bread and Twinkies couldn't share space on the same truck, so there was a lot of redundancy in delivery routes.

Sound dumb to you, too?

Maybe unions wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Keep work force, but invest in efficiency. If more efficient, and output has same requirement, than a smaller work force is called for. Instead of laying off, looks like they tried to lower salaries. Stuff like not mixing products on trucks just goes to show they had too many workers and weren't being efficient.

[j2k4]

Stuff like not mixing products on trucks just goes to show they had too many workers and weren't being efficient.

Uh, yeah. :)

[green-lantern]

so hostess has bad management and goes belly-up. meanwhile, little debbies continues to make all of the same products with a different name. why people are crying over it is retarded. if there needs to be more jobs making super-saturated-fat prepackaged-foods, then lil debbies will be hiring. otherwise, the market will shrink to adjust.

jobs that serve an extinct construct aren't legitimate jobs. if you're worried about being replaced by a robot, perhaps you should repair robots for a living.

It's the perfect model of the issues with American business. Fucked up union, fucked up management. This was a group effort, exactly the way to kill a once thriving business. If somebody thinks the company is all to blame then they are wrong. If somebody thinks the union is all to blame then they are wrong. I will say I worked for a company that the situation was very similar. After a while they grew weary of the union BS and pretty much let the place die. They warned the union over and over until they closed the doors and the workers were like "oh shit! they weren't kidding".

Like I said though, this is the perfect example of the reasons unions can suck and the reason the workers have the right to be pissed. We can't afford to pay you guys but we just paid the idiot in charge a million bucks to fuck the place up.

[IPD]

paul, that is why i favor the 50x rule and abolishing the minimum wage. 50x was the ratio of CEO/top-exec pay to the wages of the lowest-paid employees back as recently as 1980. Clearly it's not an unreasonable ratio for the top management. Recently though, the fortune 500 has been averaging 380x ratio:

Average Fortune 500 CEO Now Paid 380 Times As Much As The Average Worker | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467516/ceo-pay-gap-2011/)

By eliminating minimum wage, you allow small businesses to pay virtually whatever wages they desire--because the Owner can't possibly be collecting 50x that in in annual income; but they still have to offer something of market-value, or no one will work for them. On the other hand, by tying total CEO compensation to 50x, any CEO who wants a raise has to improve the bottom line for his company employees. This means that Wal-Mart will have to pay more than $7.25/hr. if it wants to pay it's CEO over $725,000 in TOTAL compensation annually (2000 working hours). By contrast, Michael Duke took home over 18 MILLION last year--well over 20 times that amount.

Currently, the only "system" which maintains the 50x rule is the US government (at least theoretically), as the President's compensation is well below $725,000...even including his allowances.

Sorry if i'm ranting here, but to me these types of problems are very, very simple if we just eliminated the BS regulation and went with 50x. Max CEO pay on a grunt pay of 50k is 2.5 million annually. It's simple math, and there's relatively nothing left to quibble over. Superfluous funds either go towards employee benefits, infrastructure, or dividends.

/rant

[j2k4]

Sorry if i'm ranting here...

No you aren't. :p

[IPD]

No you aren't. :p

no i'm not ranting, or no i'm not sorry? :awesome:

[UTRacerX9]

The problem with going to a 50x rule (besides having to craft a law that is the equivalent of the government telling people how much they can make!) for top management is that most of the CEO's and board members aren't pulling in a huge salary, they make good money, but salary isn't the problem. The main problem is all the stock options, deferred payouts, and pension benefits they get. In most cases, that is what is truly excessive, the "golden parachute" type stuff, not annual salaries, and that would be extremely hard for any government regulator to keep track of, especially in the case of options where several years have to go by before they are allowed to be exercised.

[j2k4]

No you aren't. :p


no i'm not ranting, or no i'm not sorry? :awesome:


You're always ranting, Thadd. :wink:

[green-lantern]

paul, that is why i favor the 50x rule and abolishing the minimum wage. 50x was the ratio of CEO/top-exec pay to the wages of the lowest-paid employees back as recently as 1980. Clearly it's not an unreasonable ratio for the top management. Recently though, the fortune 500 has been averaging 380x ratio:

Average Fortune 500 CEO Now Paid 380 Times As Much As The Average Worker | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/19/467516/ceo-pay-gap-2011/)

By eliminating minimum wage, you allow small businesses to pay virtually whatever wages they desire--because the Owner can't possibly be collecting 50x that in in annual income; but they still have to offer something of market-value, or no one will work for them. On the other hand, by tying total CEO compensation to 50x, any CEO who wants a raise has to improve the bottom line for his company employees. This means that Wal-Mart will have to pay more than $7.25/hr. if it wants to pay it's CEO over $725,000 in TOTAL compensation annually (2000 working hours). By contrast, Michael Duke took home over 18 MILLION last year--well over 20 times that amount.

Currently, the only "system" which maintains the 50x rule is the US government (at least theoretically), as the President's compensation is well below $725,000...even including his allowances.

Sorry if i'm ranting here, but to me these types of problems are very, very simple if we just eliminated the BS regulation and went with 50x. Max CEO pay on a grunt pay of 50k is 2.5 million annually. It's simple math, and there's relatively nothing left to quibble over. Superfluous funds either go towards employee benefits, infrastructure, or dividends.

/rant

Interesting, I honestly haven't heard of it....I don't think.


The problem with going to a 50x rule (besides having to craft a law that is the equivalent of the government telling people how much they can make!) for top management is that most of the CEO's and board members aren't pulling in a huge salary, they make good money, but salary isn't the problem. The main problem is all the stock options, deferred payouts, and pension benefits they get. In most cases, that is what is truly excessive, the "golden parachute" type stuff, not annual salaries, and that would be extremely hard for any government regulator to keep track of, especially in the case of options where several years have to go by before they are allowed to be exercised.

Good point


You're always ranting, Thadd. :wink:

and never sorry

[green-lantern]

Oh and I really don't care what they pay the CEO or whoever. I'm not one of these guys that cry about athletes getting paid more than teachers BUT it's hard to blame the union about closing the doors when you are saying you cant afford to say open after your 300% raise. I know why they did it but they can't say the union was the last nail in the coffin.

[IPD]

The problem with going to a 50x rule (besides having to craft a law that is the equivalent of the government telling people how much they can make!) for top management is that most of the CEO's and board members aren't pulling in a huge salary, they make good money, but salary isn't the problem. The main problem is all the stock options, deferred payouts, and pension benefits they get. In most cases, that is what is truly excessive, the "golden parachute" type stuff, not annual salaries, and that would be extremely hard for any government regulator to keep track of, especially in the case of options where several years have to go by before they are allowed to be exercised.

it all falls under compensation package. and i'm sure you aren't the only one who would be quick to voice dissent. besides, the government already tells people how much they can make; $7.25/hr. 50x just lets the free-market decide what is fair, rather than relying on arbitrary government numbers. it also gives economic incentive for companies to base employment in states where the economy is poorer, because wages are acceptably lower there. i'd expect WV--among others--to benefit greatly.

[NickS VR4]

Like I've said, and no one seems to address...

If the management bought new machines and replaced the ones from the "1920s", and combined shipments to allow wonderbread AND hostess snacks to ship on the same trucks... how many employees would be laid off, and would the unions allow that?

The upper management probably saw that the company was going down and then took it for all its worth.

Now I think the company will be bought, the new machines will be bought, the deliveries will be on the same trucks, and it will only require 1/2 the work force... becoming profitable. I think demand certainly wasn't growing for twinkies, but unions probably were preventing the restructuring (lay offs) and while not 100% at fault, they certainly hold some blame.

[UTRacerX9]

I think the spirit of the idea is good Thadd, in fact I've said in the past that the average CEO in the 60's and 70's followed this "50x rule" and our economy as a whole was a lot healthier. However... there was never actually a "rule" to begin with... that was just about the maximum of what constituted an acceptable salary for a CEO/Chairman. Unfortunately, greed has increased exponentially among those who can award themselves higher salaries over the past 30 years.

A good idea, but probably impossible to actually put into practice. If it could be done, I'd be all for it, but I don't think it's realistic.

[NickS VR4]

Btw, I think rather than limit CEO pay, raises in minimum wage may be better.

[green-lantern]

Like I've said, and no one seems to address...

If the management bought new machines and replaced the ones from the "1920s", and combined shipments to allow wonderbread AND hostess snacks to ship on the same trucks... how many employees would be laid off, and would the unions allow that?

The upper management probably saw that the company was going down and then took it for all its worth.

Now I think the company will be bought, the new machines will be bought, the deliveries will be on the same trucks, and it will only require 1/2 the work force... becoming profitable. I think demand certainly wasn't growing for twinkies, but unions probably were preventing the restructuring (lay offs) and while not 100% at fault, they certainly hold some blame.

I thought they said they needed to buy new stuff but I may have misread that.

I think you are about spot on though. The raises were a sign they gave up already. I don't think they would have hept the place open even if they did end the strike.

[IPD]

Btw, I think rather than limit CEO pay, raises in minimum wage may be better.

negative. raising minimum wage is like giving out pell-grants; all it does is raise the cost of college education by that amount--ACROSS THE BOARD.

todd, 50x was the "unofficial standard" as recently as 1980. as of 2012, 380x. and when you look at company value/stock performance vs. CEO pay, there is no correlation whatsoever.

it might be a pipe dream, but i can honestly not think of a better means by which companies will not only start better reigning-in the greed of "hired-guns", but will also help prevent insolubility problems which resulted in the bailouts we've been seeing. i know i quote nardelli a lot, but if you chopped his total compensation to 10% of what he actually made during that tenure ($50,000,000), you could put $450,000,000 towards infrastructure, dividends, success sharing, etc.

[NickS VR4]

I agree, but by raising minimum wage you can make a larger gap between benefits (earnings) of actually working, and those that only rely on entitlements. Right now there is little incentive IMO for those living on the govt to actually get a job at minimum wage.

Of course this will lead to a plea to increase entitlements to keep up with minimum wage... viscous cycle.

[IPD]

or we can just cut entitlements out altogether.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=382&d=1214037416

[fullracegt]

i just bought a twinkie from the corner store by house lol
he told me it was his last one lol

[IPD]

i've seen interviews on the news about people stocking up on twinkies. funny thing is, every single person they interviewed was overweight. hmmmm.....

[wingnut]

Hostess Mediation Fails, Liquidation To Proceed; Furious Laid Off Workers Now Turn On Labor Union | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-20/hostess-mediation-fails-liquidation-proceed-furious-former-workers-now-turn-labor-un)

Scott Quenneville, a Hostess truck driver represented by the Teamsters, said he feels his colleagues were misled by Mr. Hurt into believing that a buyer would swoop in for the company. Mr. Hurt on Sunday said he thought there was a good chance a buyer would emerge who would give union members their jobs back.

"Frank misled a lot of people. He was not going to settle for anything less than closing the company down, because they didn't want that 8% pay cut," said Mr. Quenneville. "If you don't want the job, leave the job. Why ruin 18,000 jobs?"

And heres something intersting from that article...

Doug Mansky, a Hostess driver in Detroit and a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was in the process of moving to a cheaper condominium on Tuesday, after his union had agreed to an 8% pay cut that he said would shave $200 a week from his income. After Judge Drain cleared Hostess to impose the same new labor terms on the bakers union, they went on strike.

...eight percent of the truck drivers pay is 200 bucks? By my simple math, that means this guy is (was) making 2500 a WEEK, extrapolated to 130k a year, to deliver twinkees?!?

[RealMcCoy]

...eight percent of the truck drivers pay is 200 bucks? By my simple math, that means this guy is (was) making 2500 a WEEK, extrapolated to 130k a year, to deliver twinkees?!?

By the 50X rule, the upper management was obviously severly underpaid, and needed better compensation....

[IPD]

Hostess Mediation Fails, Liquidation To Proceed; Furious Laid Off Workers Now Turn On Labor Union | ZeroHedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-20/hostess-mediation-fails-liquidation-proceed-furious-former-workers-now-turn-labor-un)

Scott Quenneville, a Hostess truck driver represented by the Teamsters, said he feels his colleagues were misled by Mr. Hurt into believing that a buyer would swoop in for the company. Mr. Hurt on Sunday said he thought there was a good chance a buyer would emerge who would give union members their jobs back.

"Frank misled a lot of people. He was not going to settle for anything less than closing the company down, because they didn't want that 8% pay cut," said Mr. Quenneville. "If you don't want the job, leave the job. Why ruin 18,000 jobs?"

And heres something intersting from that article...

Doug Mansky, a Hostess driver in Detroit and a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was in the process of moving to a cheaper condominium on Tuesday, after his union had agreed to an 8% pay cut that he said would shave $200 a week from his income. After Judge Drain cleared Hostess to impose the same new labor terms on the bakers union, they went on strike.

...eight percent of the truck drivers pay is 200 bucks? By my simple math, that means this guy is (was) making 2500 a WEEK, extrapolated to 130k a year, to deliver twinkees?!?

yep. something doesn't quite sit right. i know contractors in afghanistan who aren't even making that kind of money--and they are dodging mortars.


By the 50X rule, the upper management was obviously severly underpaid, and needed better compensation....

IF he was the lowest paid employee--which he wasn't. if the story about the line-worker having to take a pay cut down to $25,000 (2nd pay cut, after his original salary was $50,000), then it would mean that the CEO couldn't earn more than 2.5M--as opposed to the 8m or whatever he was trying to draw (based on the $50,000 salary). Cutting that to $25,000 would reduce maximum CEO compensation down to 1.25 million.