Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Health Wellness  > Hostess brand closing..      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 VacationGuy234
Joined: 8/1/2008
Msg: 1
Hostess brand closing..Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
From CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/companies/hostess-closing/index.html?source=cnn_bin

In the article: "The company said it had been making 500 million Twinkies and 127 million loaves of Wonder Bread annually before Friday's shutdown. "

There is going to be a lot of people running to stores to get their fix this week.

I can't say I'm sad to see this happen, other than the loss of jobs. While I have in the past liked those food they are extremely addictive and contribute heavily to weight gain.

This is not the end of the brands, but it will certainly slow them down and maybe wean some people off of them (hopefully).
 motown_cowgirl
Joined: 12/22/2011
Msg: 2
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 8:27:22 AM
good riddance!!! what a bunch of crap products.

i will miss "the twinkie defense", thought. that was a classic fer sure in the world of arcane yet persuasive, modern jurisprudence.

stupid union, i hope they're happy about sawing off that big ol branch right from underneath themselves. i love it! hey let's refuse to work, company goes *poof*. see ya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
oops i ate a whole box. you must die now. *pew* *pew* *pew*
 laskoboo
Joined: 2/12/2010
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 9:05:06 AM
There will be a lot more to close. I could care less about twinkies... hope my bank
stays open.. and the stores I use to not have to use the 12.00 a gallon gas to drive further out
to shop.

The upside of you like twinkies, you can buy a few pallets and store them. I understand they have a shelf life of at least 100 years.
 pescando75
Joined: 3/23/2012
Msg: 4
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 1:44:10 PM

good riddance!!! what a bunch of crap products.

Good, comrade! Feed Michele Obama's "vision." Food for thought from the CNN article above:

Its bread brands, including Wonder Bread, Nature's Pride and Butternut, make the company the No. 2 bread baker in the country, according to Symphony/IRI Group. Bimbo Bakeries, maker of the Arnold and Stroehmann brands, is the No. 1 bread baker.



stupid union, i hope they're happy about sawing off that big ol branch right from underneath themselves. i love it! hey let's refuse to work, company goes *poof*. see ya.


I think we see what the country could have looked like under one Bain Capitalist version of a "free market economy."
Again, from the article:

The company is now controlled by a group of investment firms, including hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital.

Yeah, God bless those hedge funders! This is what they do. Bankrupt and re-emerge. Don't be so myopic.

See also: GM.

Control the food, control the populace. It worked for the Nazis. When the #2 breadmaker suddenly goes *poof* yeah, we should be concerned. Wake up people.
 pescando75
Joined: 3/23/2012
Msg: 5
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 1:48:06 PM
Silver Point Capital:
Silver Point Capital LP, founded in 2002 by Goldman Sachs alums Edward A. Mule and Robert J. O'Shea

Oh what a ****ing shocker, huh?
 Red_5
Joined: 1/23/2010
Msg: 6
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 3:32:03 PM
Don't fret it.

Twinkies will be around forever.

Seriously, unless they are all eaten or tossed, Twinkies will be around FOREVER!
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 7
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/16/2012 3:35:45 PM

This is not the end of the brands, but it will certainly slow them down and maybe wean some people off of them (hopefully).

The only thing that will change is the numbers of Twinkies consumed, the net consumption of "things that are passed off as food that are clearly not food" will stay the same and or continue to grow.
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/17/2012 12:51:34 AM
There goes my main course for Thanksgiving.
Is Little Debbie safe?

I just invested in crates of the stuff..will sell bootleg style at area hospitals where the nurses think a Sprite and Twinkie is lunch.


Then I will hit the police dept..Open my trunk..Here boooooooys!!

Since the shelf life is forever (like plastic bags) I will have the monopoly on fried Twinkies at the fair next year..

Now what convertible do I want??
 VacationGuy234
Joined: 8/1/2008
Msg: 9
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/17/2012 6:16:12 AM
No question, in the even of a nuclear war the food would be a valuable source.

As for the capitalist or socialist aspect, no economy can run purely on either as there must be a balance between the two to ward off the deficiencies of each other.

I'm with Peppermint. I"m looking for a used food truck, this would be too easy.
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 10
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/18/2012 12:24:17 PM
If Peps corners the local Twinkie market...she'll be laughing all the way to the bank!
 Waterl
Joined: 10/15/2012
Msg: 11
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/20/2012 6:50:05 PM
Hostess may be closing but some other company will buy them and we'll always have Twinkies, Suzie Q's, etc. etc.
 Tek_Savvy
Joined: 10/13/2012
Msg: 12
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/22/2012 12:25:25 PM
It's no wonder with the popularity of the paleo diet. Maybe the candy companies will be next.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/29/2012 3:40:16 PM

Don't fret it.

Twinkies will be around forever.


You're right!!! They can hire bakers in Mexico, too, ya' know.
 normaldude
Joined: 3/8/2006
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 11/29/2012 6:35:33 PM
and now I see the managers are all getting bonuses??? So the company is bankrupt and over 15,000 workers are unemployed..... lets give the managers BONUSES!!!!! Kinda sounds like the same bankers who crashed the economy a few years ago moved into Hostess???
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 8:15:15 AM
Per Reuters news, about 19 of the companies top executives received a total of about $1.75 mill, which would average abut $92,000 each. They were promised the "bonuses" in order to deter them from leaving from the company before they could assist in liquidating it. So, the "bonuses" were more like severance pay, which is normal for any liquidating company. Severance pay is not normally given union members, as unions are supposed to take care of this themselves with accumulated union dues.

Hostess was having probems with profitability because their equipment and prcocess were getting outmoded. They were also having problems with stockholders, who -- like it or not -- had purchased and interest in the corporaton, and did, in fact, own some of it.

The unions had agreed to pay cuts in the past, but this was just NOT the best time for the unions to ask for more. Despite their concessions, the reapidly growing legacy costs of their pentions was just the "icing on the cupcake" (oohh, sorryy. Bad one....... )

Per Reuters:

"Bakery operations ceased last week, though product deliveries to stores continued in order to sell already-made products.
The company has blamed union wages and pension costs for contributing to its unprofitably. Hostess Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn has also said the company's labor contracts have deterred would-be bidders for the company and its assets.

Aside from its unionized workforce, analysts, bankers and restructuring experts have said that a fleet of inefficient and out-of-date factories has also eaten up costs. They have said the brand names were likely to be more valuable once they were separated from the factories and sold to non-union competitors."

I gues everybody involved here -- unions, stock holders, and ownership -- felt entitled to a profit. But that is what happens when you sell part of your company to stockholders, and workers unionize to dictate new rules to the ownersheip and get "their" piece of the pie.

So, the twinkies will be made by somebody. But if YOU had paid Mega Bucks for the receipes would YOU hire back the same unionizers for the job? Probably have to move offshore if they are in "closed shop" states.

Of course Obama COULD unionize Hostess, and keep making the goodies on the taxpayer dime, like he did for G.M. But don't know how that would work out with Michelle's campaign against obesity.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 16
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 9:19:18 AM

The company has blamed union wages and pension costs for contributing to its unprofitably. Hostess Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn has also said the company's labor contracts have deterred would-be bidders for the company and its assets.

Which is pretty ironic coming from a guy that is making ~$125,000 / month.

Though it should come as no surprise as this is how people with opportunity take away decent paying jobs from hard working people.

Just look at the train wreck of companies this guy has been involved with and I bet he is not even paying close to 20% on those earnings to boot.


If people are wondering what the end of a prosperous society is, look no further than people like these and what they are doing.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 9:50:58 AM
As for their product line, I don't think I've bought anything from Hostess in at least a decade or two. So I wont myself be impacted by their being gone from the shelves.

As for what this sort of business mess means in the larger picture, that's different.

I've seen several different versions of the "facts" on the challenges and problems that led to this, so I can't come down with certainty on one side or the other.

I can say for certain, that I look askance, upon all those who would blindly use this as a proxy for their pre-existing fights against either corporate selfishness, or against union abuses. Until the books for a company are made 100% public, and a full history of it's demise has been mapped out, condemning one side or the other out of hand, is a mistake.

I have seen businesses fail both up close, and from various distances. I know that the politics of business, always mean that the story told to the public and to creditors and to critics, always varies wildly, and is almost invariably a lie, to one degree or another.

Here, the management side portrays the failure as being entirely due to the "selfish" unions, who refused the additional cuts, above and beyond the many previous ones that had already been accepted. This point of view does not take into account the management errors that led them to their time of troubles, such as refusing to respond sufficiently to the obvious emphasis on health concerns, which companies like McDonalds DID address energetically. It does not take into account that management made the same claims in the past, in order to get agreements from the union to ignore previous agreements; and that therefore management had already undercut their own claim that these new cuts were actually the only way to continue the business. The idea that paying bonuses to the MANAGERS ONLY, in order to conduct the liquidation, is an outright insult to anyone outside of management. The PEASANTS don't need to be rewarded for behaving well for the duration, but the richer guys have to be bribed to do so.

I have also witnessed first hand, unions refusing to look at the basic requirements that a business be conducted in a manner that provides enough profit to keep it going.

Which was ACTUALLY the case here? I really can't tell for sure.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 2:12:26 PM

The idea that paying bonuses to the MANAGERS ONLY, in order to conduct the liquidation, is an outright insult to anyone outside of management. The PEASANTS don't need to be rewarded for behaving well for the duration, but the richer guys have to be bribed to do so.


Igor -- The reason the Managers got paid to LIQUIDATE and NOT the workers was because the workers were already gone. They had left the day before the liquidation began.

The management was paid a severance pay, possibly in part because of contract requirements, but mainly because these people were already looking for other jobs, and highly skilled management folks are in demand by employers in many areas. (Yeah, I know, I know. -- If they were so highly skilled, how come Hostess failed? Could be because they didn't have any say on a lot of things that Hostess did.)

Union dues are supposed to be accrued by the Unions to cover the cost of strike and severance pay. I don't know if the union members got their severance pay from the unions or not.



I have also witnessed first hand, unions refusing to look at the basic requirements that a business be conducted in a manner that provides enough profit to keep it going.

Which was ACTUALLY the case here? I really can't tell for sure.


Agreed. According to Reuters, it was a combination of both the mounting legacy cost and the fact that the business was not able to update their aging machinery and business methods to keep the business going in a profitable manner. HOSTESS was owned by a parent company -- INTERNATIONAL BAKERIES. I don't know if the lack of business upgrades was the fault of the parent company or not. I have also heard that INTERNATIONAL ownernship was a result of a hostile takeover. There's a ton of info out there, so maybe someone will look it up.

At any rate, per Reuters, the receipes are already due to be sold to another company. So, those of us who want Twinkies will get them sooner or later.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 4:02:59 PM
The reason the Managers got paid to LIQUIDATE and NOT the workers was because the workers were already gone. They had left the day before the liquidation began.


That's not exactly true. Or rather, it isn't accurate. These managers were paid BONUSES, over and ABOVE, and in addition to, regular pay, to wind the company down. See :http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/55370900-79/hostess-bonuses-company-union.html.csp for details.

They even have the opportunity to get even MORE bonuses in top of their regular pay, if they manage to liquidate the company "efficiently enough."

And of course the parent company is responsible for a lack of oversight at least, if the "daughter" company failed to operate logically.

I myself see this handing out of bonuses to the officers of a failing or declining company as a part of an all too common practice in modern big business. When big companies grow, the claim is that they must give upper officers bonuses to keep them incentivized to keep it growing. When that same company shrinks, the upper officers are STILL paid bonuses, in the claim that they need to keep them around, or that they "managed the shrinkage so well." At the same time, employees and other "peasants" are told that no bonuses or increases are available to THEM, whether the company grows or not, and that their benefits need to be reduced as well.

Apparently, the modern business philosophy believes that only RICH people require incentives to work. Poor and middle class people just need discipline and guidance from above.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/2/2012 5:28:09 PM
I googled your site, Igor, but the Hostess story was no longer up.

Here's a site that is not so specific, BUT

1. Remember that Hostess did NOT start bankruptcy until AFTER workers walked off their jobs.

2.Hostess THEN had to petition the bankruptcy court AFTER they filed the bankruptcy.

3. I dont' see any record of the workers being there after they walked off.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/55370900-79/hostess-bonuses-company-union.html.csp for details.


Apparently, the modern business philosophy believes that only RICH people require incentives to work. Poor and middle class people just need discipline and guidance from above.


Or maybe the owners were too pissed at the striking workers to give them more money. That would be the UNION's job -- and what the workers paid UNION DUES for. Did the Unions pay the workers any strike or severance pay after they bailed? If NOT, the workers got screwed by the Unions out of their own money.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/3/2012 4:06:36 AM
Not all the workers had "walked off." I don't know if anyone had walked off at all, but if they did it was just the Bakers union. All teh stories I've seen include that the rest of the employees, who see to packaging and delivery of product, were very much on the job, right to the end. No "incentive bonuses" for them, however. Just straight pay.

Besides, what I was talking about was a bigger picture. Since the early 80's, the way that most large companies have behaved is the same: rewards for top officers whether the company grows or not, and cuts for the workers whether the company shrinks or not. It's how the huge chasm of pay rates changed from the ten to one (or whatever it was) ration of the sixties and seventies, into the modern 1000 to one pay ratio between top management and peasant.

It's wrong, because it flies in the face of what the capitalists who promote it keep claiming, that rewards should go to those who work for them, and that when times are not good, that cuts have to be made.
 L_LuuLuu
Joined: 8/2/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/3/2012 9:48:32 AM

Not all the workers had "walked off." I don't know if anyone had walked off at all, but if they did it was just the Bakers union.


That's right -- the BAKER'S UNION walked off the job and went on strike, causing the factory to CLOSE the next day. Some packagers and deliverers MAY have stayed on the few days -- by their own choice. The BAKER'S UNION were NOT the ONLY cause for HOSTESS to go out of business -- but they were the ULTIMATE CAUSE. THE BAKER'S UNION helped to cost the rest of the employee's their jobs as well.

All teh stories I've seen include that the rest of the employees, who see to packaging and delivery of product, were very much on the job, right to the end. No "incentive bonuses" for them, however. Just straight pay.

My stories indicate that the factory CLOSED the day after the BAKERS UNION went on strike. HOSTESS went to bankruptcy court and had, therein to beg the GOVERNMENT for the money for upper management severance pay, per the contracts that were made with them (since thier hiring). So -- if it is any consolation to you -- the GOVERNMENT essentially gave the upper mangement their severance pay and NOT FREE ENTERPRISE. Both the HOSTESS owners and the government (FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT) knew that HIGHLY SKILLED EDUCATED MANAGERS who are familiar with THAT company's assets, market values of the property, and had business skills were less expendable than truck drivers or machinists. Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

Now, let me ask you this -- if you decided to invest your OWN savingings in ownership of a place of business would you go into it for profit? Or would you be a chartibale institution who paid everyone the same thing -- regardless of what each person's job claissification would normally earn them in the market place? Would you not have to pay for their level of skill and investment into their education? Would you not realize that competitiors compete by making goods affordable, so they hire employees at market value?

And, please don't forget -- in socilistic and communistic countries, everybody doesn't make the same thing either. Higher level jobs get paid more in those countries, too. The businesses are owned (or de-facto owned) by the governments, so the governments decide what workers in different job levels make, there, too. People have tried to create Utopias, were everyone makes exactly the same thing -- but every single such attempt has failed.

The only differences in capitialism are that EVERYONE has the chance to be an entrapenuer. AND THIS: In a capitialistic venture, employess have to be paid FIRST. The employer's portion of payroll taxes and the employees portion of taxes that have been withheld have to be forked over to the government FIRST. (Or else, it can mean jail time for the employer) Then other bills have to be paid if the company gets to stay open. THEN the owner gets paid -- LAST. I have seen cases where proprietors and officers of closely held coprations made less than their employees, did not get a dime, or even had to invest more of their cash in the company to keep it open during hard times.

So education, preparation (as in working years at lower paying jobs to "pay dues") for upper management positions have value in both a capitalistic society as well as a socialistic one. In capitalism, risk taking by entrapeueurs is also valued.


It's wrong, because it flies in the face of what the capitalists who promote it keep claiming, that rewards should go to those who work for them, and that when times are not good, that cuts have to be made.


But that's NOT wat capitalists promote. Captialists promote that the BIG rewards go to the OWNERS of business because THEY OWN THE PLACE. Workers have jobs.

Workers who are constantly improving their skills, making innovations to help their company succeed, and going above and beyond their job levelf requirements get ahead on their own. They get retirement savings plans on their own. They lose their jobs when times are hard, but they can do something else. They can make fortunates and become highly valued CEO's and get good severanace deals by themselves. They can save money and earn more through investment. There's a BIG market value in a good education and making oneself indispensable to others. So, they can rely on themselves. They can screw up, too. And fail. It happens all the time. But that's NO ONE else's problem, beyond unemployemt.

Union guys can get jobs. They may never have to improve their skill level beyond on the job training provided at their bosses expense -- for technolocical advancements. They can rely on Union Stewards to get them pay levels well beyond their level of skill. They can count on Unions for strike and severance pay. They can count the Unions to bully their employers into givng them HUGE pensions -- that non-union workers with the same skills don't get. They can even count on the Unions to keep from getting fired when they might deserve it. They can count of the Unions to keep from getting laid off, when the company actually doesn't need them. They can rely on Their bosses not to go bankrupt trying to pay all the legacy costs they accrue. They can count on everybody else but themselves.

So, sometiemes entrapenuers win. The union guys usually do well. But nobody is guaranteed ANYTHING in Capitalism. But if you think everybody is guaranteed everything in socialism -- just look at what has been going on in Europe these days.

As Margaret Thatcher said " Socialism is a good thing -- until we run out of everybody else's money".
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 23
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 12/3/2012 10:31:55 AM
By the looks of things a couple people may not understand what happened so here is a brief summary:

Vulture capitalism — not unions — killed Twinkies
Hedge funds took profits and piled on millions in debt at Hostess. They created this bankruptcy, not unions
Tuesday, Nov 20, 2012 12:45 PM UTC
By Jake Blumgart

...But the story is far more complicated than that — and in some ways, the exact opposite of the tale pushed by those on the right. It’s the story of two bankruptcies, hundreds of millions of givebacks from Hostess unions and hundreds of millions of debt piled onto the company by venture capitalists. It’s a story of management that boosted its own salaries, while failing to make agreed payments into workers’ pension funds. And it’s a story of changing tastes and diets...

....For all these reasons, Hostess (then known as Interstate) initially entered bankruptcy in 2004, with uncomfortably close to half a billion dollars in debt. Sixty percent of the debt was owned by hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital, the rest by an assortment of other lenders. No one who was paying attention to the company’s fortunes was surprised by the move. During the nearly five years of its initial bankruptcy, the company accrued even more debt.

As these conditions lingered the workforce agreed to massive pay and benefit cuts in an attempt to keep the company afloat. One 14-year veteran of the company describes the $150 million annual givebacks the union agreed to: “In 2005, before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000.” Pensions and healthcare were cut as well, with labor’s total loss equaling $110 million annually.

Following these massive givebacks, a private equity company called Ripplewood Holdings brought the company out of bankruptcy in 2009 for $130 million and rechristened it Hostess Brands. The hedge funds and other lenders forgave some old debt and extended some new debt. Ripplewood convinced the other stakeholders that it could turn the company around and, apparently, convinced them so completely that only Hostess Management and Ripplewood had seats on the board. Neither the unions nor the hedge funds acquired voting seats as part of the deals struck to keep the company afloat. They just trusted Ripplewood to turn things around, implement new technologies, introduce new products, and rebuild aging infrastructure.

That’s not how things worked out.

“Ripplewood just failed miserably on implementation,” says Eileen Appelbaum, a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It’s been a disaster. Ripplewood did not know what it was doing. They did not introduce any successful new products. Sure, they had high sales revenue but it had been declining since 2004.”

As a result of management that still hadn’t really attempted to adapt itself to new market realities, the company earned profits in 2011 of $2.5 billion: That’s 11 percent less than in 2008, before Ripplewood took over. But thanks to debt approaching $1 billion, Hostess ended 2011 with a loss of $341 million. The CEO who led the company back into bankruptcy? He got a pay raise — while Hostess pushed a 30 percent salary and benefit cut onto its employees. (A previous failed chief executive, Brian J. Driscoll, was pushed out, but only after the board tripled his pay package to $2.55 million.)

That leaves the unions in one corner and the hedge funds and Hostess management in the other. Management ordered the company to stop contributing to the union pension funds, ignoring their obligations under collective bargaining agreements. They have demanded a new round of concessions, which would have doubled insurance premiums, negated all pension obligations, and slashed pay by 27 to 32 percent. Again, the 14-year Hostess bakery veteran: “Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in five years if I took their offer. It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.”

Hostess CEO Greg Rayburn attempted to blame the company’s collapse on its workers and, in a move that seems calculated to add insult to injury, today asked a bankruptcy judge permission to pay executives $1.75 million in bonuses to oversee the dissolution of the company (and 18,000-plus union jobs). And that’s after a round of executive pay raises earlier this year.

The union, meanwhile, faced an increasingly untenable position. Pick your poison: another round of humiliating concessions resulting in poverty wages and almost no benefits, or go down swinging? The latter may not seem sensible to those judging from 30,000 feet, but clearly the bakery workers were sick and tired of giving in — 92 percent of them voted against accepting the cuts.

“This is the Twinkie cliff that the company drove over: They had fairly extensive (cuts) for a protracted period of time and a failure to adapt to the market,” says Harley Shaiken, labor professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “I think why the bakery union refused these steep concessions is because they didn’t see a credible plan to get the company out of this. They just saw that they were being asked to bear the brunt of the managerial mistakes. There were no good options, just disastrous and catastrophic options.”...


Read more about how this is all a PT spin to make unions look bad and how the stupids are buying it hook line and sinker at: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/vulture_capitalism_not_unions_killed_twinkies/
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 24
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 6/24/2013 8:57:03 AM

The union has nothing to do with this

Not any more. Hostess was purchased by Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management for $410 million. Twinkees are expected back on supermarket shelves in July 2013.

What happened to the 15,000 union workers laid off? Only those agreeing to leave the union will be hired back. This was a union busting move by the company - quite common in the food industry. The millions in bonuses were essentially severance packages. When a company is bought, upper management usually gets switched around.

By the way, Twinkees' shelf life is 45 days.
 justagrlwithacat
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 25
Hostess brand closing..
Posted: 6/24/2013 11:15:45 AM
I've never had a twinkee. They look tasty, but i think I'll skip it. I'm sure a lot of people are rejoicing.
Show ALL Forums  > Health Wellness  > Hostess brand closing..