wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

Hostess is betting on a sweet comeback for Twinkies when they return to shelves next month.

The company that went bankrupt after an acrimonious fight with its unionized workers last year is back up and running under new owners and a leaner structure. It says it plans to have Twinkies and other snack cakes back on shelves starting July 15.

Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo bought Twinkies and other Hostess cakes for $410 million.



link 
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago

[URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/business/sweetest-comeback-twinkies-hit-shelves-july-15-6C10423619"]link[/URL]

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Your link sucks Wayne.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

Your link sucks Wayne.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



fixed
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago
"Some workers were hired back, but are no longer unionized." Let me guess, they get a 70/30 health care plan and a 3% 401K worthless pension subject to sways in the market caused by the greedy thieves on Wall Street. Gotta love America. But hey, we have our Twinkies back. As Texas would put it, life is good.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

"Some workers were hired back, but are no longer unionized." Let me guess, they get a 70/30 health care plan and a 3% 401K worthless pension subject to sways in the market caused by the greedy thieves on Wall Street. Gotta love America. But hey, we have our Twinkies back. As Texas would put it, life is good.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I suppose it is better for them to sit on their butts at home without a job and draw unemployment?
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago

I suppose it is better for them to sit on their butts at home without a job and draw unemployment?

Originally Posted by: wpr 



No, there should be laws against allowing a company to reorganize with the sole purpose of breaking a union. When the doors opened back up, the labor force should have been fully reinstated.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

No, there should be laws against allowing a company to reorganize with the sole purpose of breaking a union. When the doors opened back up, the labor force should have been fully reinstated.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



If you bothered to read the whole story someone else owns Hostess now. hey did not "break the union" these people bought a name and hired former employees back. That is admirable. The story also said that most of the other junk food makers are not unionized. That means the Hostess workers priced themselves right out of the market. Now that the new employees are not unionized Hostess has a chance to compete in the marketplace. They can't expect to have people pay $5 for a snack just so unions can enforce an artificially higher pay scale.

As for your consistently bashing 401k, stop being such a jerk. (I edited myself.) I don' see you weeping for me or anyone else who is self employed like I am. I have to take money out of my own pocket and set aside for my retirement. But that is ok with you. Why should a lunch bucket guy who may not have even bothered to graduate from high school get a better retirement plan? You want a retirement then do it yourself don't expect someone else to do it for you.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago

If you bothered to read the whole story someone else owns Hostess now. hey did not "break the union" these people bought a name and hired former employees back. That is admirable. The story also said that most of the other junk food makers are not unionized. That means the Hostess workers priced themselves right out of the market. Now that the new employees are not unionized Hostess has a chance to compete in the marketplace. They can't expect to have people pay $5 for a snack just so unions can enforce an artificially higher pay scale.

As for your consistently bashing 401k, stop being such a jerk. (I edited myself.) I don' see you weeping for me or anyone else who is self employed like I am. I have to take money out of my own pocket and set aside for my retirement. But that is ok with you. Why should a lunch bucket guy who may not have even bothered to graduate from high school get a better retirement plan? You want a retirement then do it yourself don't expect someone else to do it for you.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Actually, I have read up on this. There was mismanagement - meaning fat boys at the top taking too much, and there was overcompensation paid out based on the good years. I agree that unions price their workers to an unsustainable compensation package, but don't insult my intelligence by insinuating the boys at the top of the food chain weren't taking too much.

I too am self employed in part of my working life, and I am also a union millwright. So please don't judge my perspective on this kind of topic, when I am the only one involved in these conversations that sees and lives both sides of the argument. Everyone else is totally one way or the other and is very selfish with his point of view - which is why these arguments never can be discussed reasonably.


UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

Actually, I have read up on this. There was mismanagement - meaning fat boys at the top taking too much, and there was overcompensation paid out based on the good years. I agree that unions price their workers to an unsustainable compensation package, but don't insult my intelligence by insinuating the boys at the top of the food chain weren't taking too much.

I too am self employed in part of my working life, and I am also a union millwright. So please don't judge my perspective on this kind of topic, when I am the only one involved in these conversations that sees and lives both sides of the argument. Everyone else is totally one way or the other and is very selfish with his point of view - which is why these arguments never can be discussed reasonably.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



You can bash the prior management all you want. I don't care. The new owners are not them and your post insinuates they folded the corp only to bust the union then opened the doors once again. That is blatantly wrong. Certainly some companies have done something like that but that is not the case here and you knew that.

Yes I know you have two jobs a union one and a real one. [grin1] but that doesn't mean you are the only one who has worked in a union shop. I have worked for the unions who hire their employees out companies as well. I know you bust your butt to make a life for your family. So do many of us. Don't act holier than anyone else. You are not.

The unions today are just as corrupt as many of the businesses if not more so. They are not there looking out for the little guy. They are only looking out for themselves. I had a customer who was a hard working schmoe. He blacktopped driveways and parking lots. He his son and a couple of guys who he treated like family. What did the union do? They shot at his house at nite. They stole his equipment. They tore up his work. They damaged his trucks. Why? because he didn't pay the union their bride money. They forced him to lay off his employees. his son had to leave and find another job and he had to go work at Home Depot.



UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

"Some workers were hired back, but are no longer unionized." Let me guess, they get a 70/30 health care plan and a 3% 401K worthless pension subject to sways in the market caused by the greedy thieves on Wall Street. Gotta love America. But hey, we have our Twinkies back. As Texas would put it, life is good.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Sounds pretty good to me.

Unions have their place (if I was sarcastic, I'd say that place in in the past hahaha). What you don't seem to be able to grasp, Dakota, is this:

Corporations owe their allegiance to ONE group - the stockholders - NOT the employees, NOT the customers, etc. Usually, of course, it is advantageous to keep harmony with the employees and to keep the customers satisfied, but PRIMARY is the bottom line - profit for the stockholders. Most of the time, they do a pretty good job of that, causing people like you to fly off the handle with your anti-rich rants.

Unions owe their allegiance to ONE group - the employees/membership - NOT the employer, NOT the consumers of the products, etc. Unlike corporations, however, unions do NOT do a very good job of representing the interests of their members. They donate damn near 100% to the Democrats, regardless of what side their membership is on, but that is the LESSER problem. The GREATER problem is illustrated beautifully with this Twinkie thing. The union broke the fundamental biological rule of a parasite - which basically, unions are. They KILLED the host - or in this case Hostess - pun intended hahahaha. So often, unions do just that - demand so much that a company has two choices operate themselves into bankruptcy OR just give up and go out of business. THAT ain't doing a good job for the workers. Compromising - keeping things going in terms of jobs and production is what is needed. Unfortunately, it usually takes BREAKING the union before that compromise can occur.

My First and Best thought when reading this thread title, though is: Take that, you fat ugly pig, Michelle Obama and your idiotic nutrition non-sense. The PEOPLE will HAVE their Twinkies!!!!


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago
We all owe our current labor laws to unions. What always bothered me about either auditing businesses or preparing their taxes is the complaining of the customer that would go along with the tax bill. And I would always comment that one way the business owner could escape paying so much tax is to compensate their employees better in either wages or benefits. And in almost every situation they felt they were overcompensating their employees already. And this is the fundamental flaw in thinking that brings about poor company moral and a total breakdown in the American workforce. People want security, and our current business model is not providing that anymore and this is plain and simply chalked up to that abomination called greed.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

We all owe our current labor laws to unions. What always bothered me about either auditing businesses or preparing their taxes is the complaining of the customer that would go along with the tax bill. And I would always comment that one way the business owner could escape paying so much tax is to compensate their employees better in either wages or benefits. And in almost every situation they felt they were overcompensating their employees already. And this is the fundamental flaw in thinking that brings about poor company moral and a total breakdown in the American workforce. People want security, and our current business model is not providing that anymore and this is plain and simply chalked up to that abomination called greed.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



It didn't even occur to you that maybe they WERE over-compensating their employees? It should also occur to you that the main aspect of the current business model that is unstable or insecure is employee cost. Part of that, of course, is the damn government with its OSHA and other intrusive regulation, but a large part of it is unions who go way beyond just negotiating for higher pay; They are more than willing to kill the whole process by failing to compromise to the point of bankrupting the business - like the Twinkie/Hostess example.

Yeah, I give unions a LOT of credit historically for forcing the labor laws and for basically creating the strong comfortable working class that sets this country apart from almost everywhere else in the world. But in the last half century or so, two things have happened: the unions have been co-opted by leftist politicians - even on the payroll of the big unions AND unions have gone beyond the bounds of reason to the point where companies simply can't afford to compete if they have union labor. I suppose that sword cuts both ways, and the companies using non-union workers are partly to blame, but it seems a lot more American to let choice and the law of supply and demand prevail rather than having laws forcing workers to be unionized - or do you disagree about that?


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Pack93z
  • Pack93z
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago
The Unions at one point most definitely helped shape labor laws and had a proper place in the labor pool. But they also got lazy and focused on protecting all workers under the umbrella (IE the lazy); not to mention mismanagement of the union funds; lost most of their credibility and have become nothing but an albatross around the productive workers neck.

Like it or not, the surplus of potential employees has allowed the leverage to shift to the employers at the moment. And unless the dynamic swings back to the employee and cost based sense for the number cruncher's shows that the American work can compete in the labor costs, I don't see it returning to the employees favor anytime soon. Select trades still hold leverage.. but for the majority of factor laborers, there is zero leverage for the most part.

Several factors lead into this from my viewpoint:

- The general work ethic of the American worker has declined.
- The upper management is retaining a larger slice of the profits generated.
- Insurance costs have become unmanageable in terms of cost, and before it is all blamed on Obama, this trend dates back to right around the turn of the century, if not before.
- Importing products crafted with cheaper labor is too cost incentive at the moment, part of the "bad" of a free trade market. $$ rule.
- Economy struggles and the notion that every citizen "has" to own a house.
- Generally, we in America have to own more than we really need and many because they are in competition with thy neighbor.

I am sure we could list dozens more.. but you get the point.

I certainly cannot absolve the fat cats at the top... but they are not the only dynamic causing the problem.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago
Good Analysis, pack93. What gets lost in this whole discussion, it seems to me, is that workers - like everybody in this country - have it pretty damn good compared to the rest of the world, compared to historic levels of living standards, etc. A lot of complaint DOESN'T come from the workers themselves, but from the unions - who don't like it that in so many cases, the workers got that well off without unionization. Just look at Walmart hahahaha.

One thing you said that concerns me - maybe because I used to be in the real estate business. It is NOT a bad thing that virtually all workers strive to be homeowners. Historically, and nowadays more than ever, owning a home is cheaper for the same quality level than renting. It seemed to me you were implying that striving for ownership was not a good thing.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

- The general work ethic of the American worker has declined.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



I credit Unions for this, and also the decline (my opinion) in parenting properly.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

I credit Unions for this, and also the decline (my opinion) in parenting properly.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



The former I agree; The latter is kinda a stretch hahahaha.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Pack93z
  • Pack93z
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Select Member
12 years ago


One thing you said that concerns me - maybe because I used to be in the real estate business. It is NOT a bad thing that virtually all workers strive to be homeowners. Historically, and nowadays more than ever, owning a home is cheaper for the same quality level than renting. It seemed to me you were implying that striving for ownership was not a good thing.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



It is not a bad thing to "strive to" own one.. but many that do shouldn't do to their financial situation or that they buy "too much" house and cannot afford it.

That is my view upon it.. even I a financial conservative think I probably extended to far, even though my house is modest and the land was owned for years. But I am a mostly a tightwad in my aging days, lol.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

I credit Unions for this, and also the decline (my opinion) in parenting properly.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



when I worked in a factory (while in college) I saw the laziest people that I had ever met, to that point in my life. I worked in 3 different plants over the four years and saw the same mentality in different people. That was, "You can't fire me I am a union member and I will file a grievance and tie this up with the lawyers." That is not just the factory or blue collar workers, college professors, with tenor would express that same thing. Granted the professors would not sneak into the back warehouse and sleep during their shift like several blues did. They did not walk out the back door with merchandise or tools like many of my fellow workers did. They simply didn't not care to instruct the students to the best of their abilities. Many required the students to purchase books that they authored. (Some of them were the worst written and least instructive I have ever picked up.)


UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • 100% (Exalted)
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

It is not a bad thing to "strive to" own one.. but many that do shouldn't do to their financial situation or that they buy "too much" house and cannot afford it.

That is my view upon it.. even I a financial conservative think I probably extended to far, even though my house is modest and the land was owned for years. But I am a mostly a tightwad in my aging days, lol.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



Back in the late 80's my younger brother and I were leaving Peoria after a meeting and heading back home. We drove past homes were Caterpillar employees lived. I asked my brother what was different about these houses than the ones in our town. He couldn't see any difference. I pointed out that almost every home had 3 or more cars. While some homes in our town did, most of them didn't. Over 75% of the homes had boats, 4 wheelers, snowmobiles or campers as well.

I don't mind it if they have all those toys. They were right along the river and it is more than common to have such things. But my point is that a greater number of people in the stretch between Peoria and Henry,IL which is about 25 miles long, have an over abundance of toys than in other areas of Illinois at that time. The common factor was the Cat plant. Cat was still King in those days and most everyone worked for them.

If they had saved up and paid cash more power to them. Being in insurance it was my experience that the majority of them did not. Banks were more than willing in those days to loan money.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago
A lot of good points being made in this thread.

Yeah, when I was in real estate, I wish I had a commission for every buyer who failed to qualify because they wanted more house than the mortgage company said they had income for. And most who did get houses were at the upper limit.

Regarding toys, whether on credit or not, to me that is a sign of workers making good income. We would be wrong to begrudge them that just as it's wrong for Dakota to begrudge business owners healthy profits. Somebody else's good fortune has NO bad effect on one's own situation. That's my nice side talking hahahaha.

Now for my not so nice side: what I SHOULD have said regarding work ethic is that it is an oxymoron. Work is a damn four letter word, and there is nothing ethical about it. The relationship between employer and employee is ADVERSARIAL - the worker does the least and worst he can get away with for the most money he can squeeze out of the boss. Conversely, the boss works the employee's ass off for as little pay as he can get away with giving him. Of course, most people on both sides of that situation are too nice to stick the knife in to the hilt, but that's the nature of the relationship. It's the same with landlord/tenant, policy holder/insurance company, creditor/borrower, etc. Dakota talked about the "abomination of greed"; No - greed is the norm. A bunch of individuals acting in their own greedy self interest will result in maximization of the common good for everybody. That's the theory anyway hahahahaha.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Fan Shout
beast (2h) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
Zero2Cool (8h) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
Zero2Cool (8h) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
Zero2Cool (8h) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
packerfanoutwest (10-Jul) : Us Padres fans love it....But it'll be a Dodgers/Yankees World Series
Zero2Cool (9-Jul) : Brewers sweep Dodgers. Awesome
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : And James Flanigan is the grandson of Packers Super Bowl winner Jim Flanigan Sr.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jul) : Jerome Bettis and Jim Flanigans sons as well!
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Thomas Davis Jr is OLB, not WR. Oops.
Zero2Cool (6-Jul) : Larry Fitzgeral and Thomas Davis sons too. WR's as well.
Mucky Tundra (5-Jul) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

10-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10-Jul / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

6-Jul / Random Babble / Martha Careful

4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.