# No More Twinkies



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

Hostess said they will close today in the news. Very sad 18,000 jobs will be lost.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Business owners have been telling us that Obama Care is going to ruin them. This is just a start.


----------



## fredg53 (Sep 17, 2010)

Yep more on the way 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Agitation Free said:


> Business owners have been telling us that Obama Care is going to ruin them. This is just a start.


Perhaps the recent election emboldened the union workers whose strike led to this unfortunate action. Hostess was attempting to emerge from bankruptcy and part of the restructuring by the administrators called for an 8% wage cut for labor. Although the Teamsters re-signed with Hostess apparently other labor organizations, bakery union for one, refused. Management indicated that were no funds to facilitate a work stoppage and warned if it was not resolved they would have to close. Union said no, so good bye 18,500 jobs. Nice work everyone, way to play well together.
Kagee is about to whack this one, too bad. We could use at least one thread where some political and current issue discussion would be tolerated. A lot going on today and even we dumb sportsman and women would like an opportunity to discuss it with others that we converse with often on other issues.


----------



## cheezemm2 (Apr 7, 2004)

He will be looking for his twinkies and mad as %[email protected]# Sad day today, really...


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

This is my line of work this is the third pay but there workers would have taken. So it is not just an 8 percent pay cut.not to mention slashing of benefits. There people have been through a lot. I have many friends who are/ were employed by hostess brands and I spam for them all. There comes a point when enough is enough though.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Twinkies. Soon to be made in China and served with soy sauce.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

nicklesman said:


> There comes a point when enough is enough though.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Yeah, I guess they really showed them.

No what do they plan to do for employment? Stupid, stupid, stupid

I'm guessing there are about 18,000 ex-employees that would like a second chance to vote today.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

PapawSmith said:


> Perhaps the recent election emboldened the union workers whose strike led to this unfortunate action. Hostess was attempting to emerge from bankruptcy and part of the restructuring by the administrators called for an 8% wage cut for labor. Although the Teamsters re-signed with Hostess apparently other labor organizations, bakery union for one, refused. Management indicated that were no funds to facilitate a work stoppage and warned if it was not resolved they would have to close. Union said no, so good bye 18,500 jobs. Nice work everyone, way to play well together.
> Kagee is about to whack this one, too bad. We could use at least one thread where some political and current issue discussion would be tolerated. A lot going on today and even we dumb sportsman and women would like an opportunity to discuss it with others that we converse with often on other issues.




I have been watching a very "Eye Opening" program on the History Channel called, The Men Who Built America....It tells about the "So Called" Great Men With Minds, who built America...Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Ford....what it ends up showing ME, is how BIG BUSINESS with it's corruption and it's greed, treated and took advantage of the workers so they could MAXIMIZE profits for themselves and the stock holders....kinda like today!
They actually fought against each other, or tried to out-do each other, to see who could be the richest and weld more power! 
Man, the workers at that time REALLY had it rough! That was a tough bunch of people at that time to put up with that kind of stuff and the working conditions....we are real SOFT, compared to those generations!


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

nicklesman said:


> There comes a point when enough is enough though.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Absolutely. Thats what Hostess said. Unfortunately Hostess should have had help wanted ads posted as soon as they heard he strike was going to occur. As one non-worker leaves, another worker steps in to earn a paycheck. In his economy....having a job is better than not.....and these workers chose their own fate. It is very sad that so many could be persuaded to make such a bad decision.

I feel badly for future generations wihout twinkies though.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

nicklesman said:


> This is my line of work this is the third pay but there workers would have taken. So it is not just an 8 percent pay cut.not to mention slashing of benefits. There people have been through a lot. I have many friends who are/ were employed by hostess brands and I spam for them all. There comes a point when enough is enough though.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I look at this as a simple math question. Which is better: 80% of what you used to make or 100% of nothing?


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Somebody will come along and buy them up. Wait and see.

Papaw... Outdoor Hub makes the rules, not me. There are plenty of political forums out there for your entertainment.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

sbreech said:


> Absolutely. Thats what Hostess said. Unfortunately Hostess should have had help wanted ads posted as soon as they heard he strike was going to occur. As one non-worker leaves, another worker steps in to earn a paycheck. In his economy....having a job is better than not.....and these workers chose their own fate. It is very sad that so many could be persuaded to make such a bad decision.
> 
> I feel badly for future generations wihout twinkies though.


That would have been great, if they could. Unfortunately, that isn&#8217;t some they could do with union labor. There are millions of people out there that would love to have those jobs, and realize that the job of Twinkie stuffer shouldn&#8217;t come with a $20/hour wage and a* pension*.  I&#8217;m sure one way or another there will be Twinkies and Wonder bread again, probably under a new ownership name. And you can bet, they won&#8217;t be using union labor.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

PapawSmith said:


> Perhaps the recent election emboldened the union workers whose strike led to this unfortunate action. Hostess was attempting to emerge from bankruptcy and part of the restructuring by the administrators called for an 8% wage cut for labor. Although the Teamsters re-signed with Hostess apparently other labor organizations, bakery union for one, refused. Management indicated that were no funds to facilitate a work stoppage and warned if it was not resolved they would have to close. Union said no, so good bye 18,500 jobs. Nice work everyone, way to play well together.
> Kagee is about to whack this one, too bad. We could use at least one thread where some political and current issue discussion would be tolerated. A lot going on today and even we dumb sportsman and women would like an opportunity to discuss it with others that we converse with often on other issues.


Theres always 2 sides to every story. Hostesses creditors have filed suit claiming executives at hostess raised there own salaries by 35-80% before filing chapter 11 http://www.teamster.org/content/dow...ng-hostess-amid-talk-‘shared-sacrifice’-execs


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

KaGee said:


> Papaw... Outdoor Hub makes the rules, not me. There are plenty of political forums out there for your entertainment.


But I like this place and want to argue with these people. And me predicting you would whack this thread was not a criticism of your personal policies or actions, I simply realize this issue straddles a fine line and you seem to be the most prolific axe wielder of late.


----------



## Slatebar (Apr 9, 2011)

M.Magis said:


> That would have been great, if they could. Unfortunately, that isnt some they could do with union labor. There are millions of people out there that would love to have those jobs, and realize that the job of Twinkie stuffer shouldnt come with a $20/hour wage and a* pension*.  Im sure one way or another there will be Twinkies and Wonder bread again, probably under a new ownership name. And you can bet, they wont be using union labor.


I am Union (UMWA) and I do respect your openion weather I agree with it or not. But just out of curiousoty,,, What should be the hourly wage of a Twinkie Stuffer ?? any benifits ?


----------



## Eriesteamer (Mar 9, 2007)

I need info. ok your top at this. is The twinkies a Wonder bread made thing as here theres a big wonder bread store and it sells them. and bread by there name. if so hope it does not put there bread out stock or out busness. as I buy me ( laugh your but off ) my rye with seeds there to make my limburger cheese sand witches. LOL it helps to keep the fish smell off me and adds more cat fish cathes. Think why you never asked me again to fish with you. and rest pass my looking for open seats. That day us four hit the lake I was eatting salomei and oh well. if I had brought limberger bets on you three would made me walk the plank. LOL


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

robertj298 said:


> Theres always 2 sides to every story. Hostesses creditors have filed suit claiming executives at hostess raised there own salaries by 35-80% before filing chapter 11 http://www.teamster.org/content/dow...ng-hostess-amid-talk-‘shared-sacrifice’-execs


You need to be as careful reading a story on a Union organizations website that "alleges" wrongdoing by corporate management as you do when reading a WalMart corporate newsletter that criticizes the rank and file workers. 
I never placed blame on any individual entity, just stated that striking labor apparently forced a closure per the current and available news stories on this issue.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Slatebar said:


> I am Union (UMWA) and I do respect your openion weather I agree with it or not. But just out of curiousoty,,, What should be the hourly wage of a Twinkie Stuffer ?? any benifits ?


Thats a good question, and I personally dont know the answer. BTW, I made that number up. But, I do know that for the most part those jobs were unskilled labor that 99% of Americans could do. A jobs hourly wage should be dependent on how skilled the person doing that job is, and how many people could step in and take over. Local living expense should also play a role. But a pension for unskilled labor? Come on, thats greed plain and simple.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

The only hope for all of these recently or soon to be unemployed is Bain Capital or another like company that can come in and purchase the assets and restructure portions to maybe save a portion of the company and maybe some jobs.

How ironic


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Slatebar said:


> I am Union (UMWA) and I do respect your openion weather I agree with it or not. But just out of curiousoty,,, What should be the hourly wage of a Twinkie Stuffer ?? any benifits ?


Obviously lower than it currently is or we wouldn't be talking about this today, but I don't know what it should be. Or the buying public needs to be willing to pay more for their twinkies and Ho's(don't go there)

This is is a great illustration on the difference between public and private unions. Private companies can go out of business.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Your right this is how this business works

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Slatebar said:


> I am Union (UMWA) and I do respect your openion weather I agree with it or not. But just out of curiousoty,,, What should be the hourly wage of a Twinkie Stuffer ?? any benifits ?


The hourly wage and benefits associated with ANY job would be dictated by what the market will bear. Obviously, the market would not bear what the unions demanded.

There is no fixed number than can be put on any job. in addition, one 'twinkie stuffer' may stuff 2x more 'twinkie stuffers' than the next guy. So, even inside the ranks of 'twinkie stuffers' there would be people who are more valuable than their counterparts.

The union waaay overplayed their hand on this one and now 18K people are wondering what they're gonna do tomorrow. I hope they were smart enough to save up some scratch.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

PapawSmith said:


> You need to be as careful reading a story on a Union organizations website that "alleges" wrongdoing by corporate management as you do when reading a WalMart corporate newsletter that criticizes the rank and file workers.
> I never placed blame on any individual entity, just stated that striking labor apparently forced a closure per the current and available news stories on this issue.


It may have been on a union website but the article was written by The Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Report.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

You can blame the union but without being familiar with the exact circumstances how can anyone say whether it was the unions fault or maybe the company was being mismanaged. I would imagine both would blame each other.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

I don't agree with the "just be happy you got a job" position. Wages have been going down and the cost of living is always going up. It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage. Most people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, than depend on government assistance. You can't provide for yourself on minimum wage, how could a family do it? The labor force is always at the bottom. CEO's first, shareholders second and labor last. We are still in a recession and with every job lost, we're only digging ourselves in deeper. We need jobs that pay a respectable living wage.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

Agitation Free said:


> I don't agree with the "just be happy you got a job" position. It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage. You can't provide for yourself on minimum wage. How can a family provide for themselves on minimum wage. The labor force is always at the bottom. CEO's first. Shareholders second and labor last. We are still in a recession and with every job lost, we're only digging ourselves in deeper.


If the market won't support the cost, then you can't have artificially supported high(er) wages. I'd change the spin to be more in line with "it's in the best interest of every individual to develop enough skill and education to qualify for a job that pays a respectable living wage, however they define that wage to be."

There's nothing wrong with low wage wage jobs either. Those jobs allow unskilled workers to gain experience that can be applied to getting their next, better paying job.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

Agitation Free said:


> I don't agree with the "just be happy you got a job" position. It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage. You can't provide for yourself on minimum wage. How can a family provide for themselves on minimum wage. The labor force is always at the bottom. CEO's first. Shareholders second and labor last. We are still in a recession and with every job lost, we're only digging ourselves in deeper.


These werent minimum wage jobs. Far from it I believe.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

PapawSmith said:


> But I like this place and want to argue with these people. And me predicting you would whack this thread was not a criticism of your personal policies or actions, I simply realize this issue straddles a fine line and you seem to be the most prolific axe wielder of late.


And as I type this somebody else out there is complaining that this thread has already crossed the line. You can't please everyone.

And I don't wield an axe... I have a special keyboard that the others lack...


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Amazing....I have a hard time believing any business now, after what has been happening recently....!

Since the bail-out of GM, that allowed them to shed pay and benefits of the workers and debts to mostly Small businesses...they have been recording RECORD Profits ever since (7.6 billion in 2011, and larger this year).....and they still have not paid back the borrowed TAX money even though they are paying BONUSES to employees!

It seems to be the NEW business ploy to feign hardship and when they get what they want...then come back "like gangbusters"!

My question is...when is enough money enough, at what expense do you go to still have a soul, and are there no people with morals or principals anymore???
The US has lost most of its LIVING WAGES...how low will wages and benefits get cut before we bottom out!
IMHO, We should be trying to bring the rest of the world up to OUR living standards if possible, not trying to bring US down to them!


----------



## lotaluck (Dec 17, 2009)

Agitation Free said:


> It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage.


In my opinion that is a very dangerous statement.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Agitation Free said:


> I don't agree with the "just be happy you got a job" position. It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage. You can't provide for yourself on .


Approximately 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized. This is a large reduction from what it was even just 20 years ago. There are good reasons for the reductions.

Nearly 37% of all public employees are unionized. The sole reason for the big difference is that government doesn't out of business and are funded by taxpayers, they do not have to sell a product and make a profit to keep the doors open. We have seen the effects with the budget deficits and debt.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Bucket Mouth said:


> If the market won't support the cost, then you can't have artificially supported high(er) wages. I'd change the spin to be more in line with "it's in the best interest of every individual to develop enough skill and education to qualify for a job that pays a respectable living wage, however they define that wage to be."
> 
> There's nothing wrong with low wage wage jobs either. Those jobs allow unskilled workers to gain experience that can be applied to getting their next, better paying job.


I'm not saying your wrong but how do you know the cost is due to high wages? While wages effect cost its not the only factor that effects cost.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

lotaluck said:


> In my opinion that is a very dangerous statement.


You can see from the recent events in Spain, etc, what a lack of jobs, NO LIVING WAGE, and 25% unemployment can do to a population!

Full employment of those willing to work for a good wage that they can support a family on, leads to a robust ecomomy, people spending money, and full tills for BUSINESSES, STATES, AND THE GOVERNMENT! 
What gets everyone in trouble...is once they have full coffers, they just start blowing it until it is gone....and the next thing you know when there is a hiccup...they are broke AND HAVE TO CUT!!!!


----------



## freyedknot (Apr 10, 2004)

i worked for them here in cleveland when itt owned them . then they restructured and closed the bakery on twinky lane. back in the 80's it was a good high paying hot job with very irregular hours. i always see adds for jobs at swebels in solon . tuff buisness with not a lot of profit margin. just as most donut shops fall by the waysiden in the past. we used to make 200,000 twinkies to make an order for 100,000.after all the ones that did not turn out right or fell on the floor. and then sold to the pig farmers.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

lotaluck said:


> In my opinion that is a very dangerous statement.


Why? If people make a higher wage than more tax is collected. And we're in a $16 trillion dollar hole.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

robertj298 said:


> It may have been on a union website but the article was written by The Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Report.


It is from a Dow report, one that is 8 months old, and I would be willing to bet that the "title" in blue was provided by the Teamsters publication and the actual title is in black just above the byline. Regardless, the article in it's entirety indicates that these are suspicions and allegations and I've seen no recent Dow articles that have bore these allegations out. That, however, does not mean that they are not true and the recent acting CEO that was put in place to restructure has stated clearly that there was blame deserved for the overall company ill health "across the board".
This has been going on for some time and from the beginning it was clear that without concessions from the union that Hostess could not pull thru bankruptcy. Management even received one extension from the bankruptcy court to try to further negotiate with the Bakers Union but was still not successful. I think, in the end, blame here will fall squarely on the union leadership for failing to represent their rank and file membership in good faith, as they are pledged to do. I think 18,000 workers would really like to be employed today, even if for a bit less than yesterday.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Lundy said:


> The only hope for all of these recently or soon to be unemployed is Bain Capital or another like company that can come in and purchase the assets and restructure portions to maybe save a portion of the company and maybe some jobs.
> 
> How ironic


Classic. Thanks unions, ya blew it again! I liked the link provided earlier from teamsters.com or teamsters.org.......no way.....unions aren't biased!!!


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

Union may be partly to blame but Management takes the bigger part of the blame as the company has filed and went thru Bankruptcy before in 2004. In my opinion any Company that has filed for bankruptcy twice in a decade should be gone thru with a fine tooth comb to weed out the idiots in management who keep driving the company into the ground.

I'll miss Twinkies and Wonder bread but to be honest Little Debbie makes better twinkies and cupcakes and even store brand breads are at least as good if not better than Wonder is.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Lundy said:


> Approximately 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized. This is a large reduction from what it was even just 20 years ago. There are good reasons for the reductions.
> 
> Nearly 37% of all public employees are unionized. The sole reason for the big difference is that government doesn't out of business and are funded by taxpayers, they do not have to sell a product and make a profit to keep the doors open. We have seen the effects with the budget deficits and debt.


NAFTA, other labor deals, cheap products from China, monetary manipulation by Countries especially China, out-sourcing, Corporate and stockholder greed, etc, have destroyed most of the middle class WHO MAKES THE ECONOMY RUN!!!

These ARE areas that a Government "OF THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE" should be involved with! But, OUR Government LEADERS (ALL SIDES) are mostly to blame for allowing this to happen in the first place!LOL


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

I remember the smell of the Wonderbread cooking over on College St near Action U (Univ of Akron) 25 years ago on cold winter morning as I was walking to class.
There not a better smell.

At least we still have Nickles in Navarre I think. They may have shut that down too. Driving south on SR 21 past the bread factory early in the morning on my way to Atwood used to make my mouth water.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Hostess employees gambled, and Hostess called their bluff. It's amazing that unionized workers will gather to hear their leaders speak, being told that if they wait, they will get what they want, and without the union, they will not have a job. This time, quite the contrary...
[/COLOR] 
People need to pick up a book, learn something and lift themselves up. Make yourself useful. If they think they're worth more, prove it - make it so.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Lundy said:


> The only hope for all of these recently or soon to be unemployed is Bain Capital or another like company that can come in and purchase the assets and restructure portions to maybe save a portion of the company and maybe some jobs.
> 
> How ironic


Or maybe they could come in and ship the operations to China where they can get workers to work for $1 an hour with no benifits.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Intimidator said:


> NAFTA, other labor deals, cheap products from China, monetary manipulation by Countries especially China, out-sourcing, Corporate and stockholder greed, etc, have destroyed most of the middle class WHO MAKES THE ECONOMY RUN!!!


Number one, the middle class has not been destroyed at all, in fact they are alive and strong, albeit somewhat depleted in recent years. Just take a drive through the neighborhoods and you will see people still live, overall, pretty damn well today. Second, you had six shots and you missed each time, but each of those you listed are contributing factors. Over regulation of most all industry and exceedingly high corporate taxes are the biggest drivers of the depletion of today's middle class due to these two factors pushing so many manufacturing jobs overseas. 
And the jobs that can't be shipped out are greatly being affected by the same regulations and taxes. But instead of losing employment overseas we are losing it here to immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. They pretty much totally ignore the costly regulations and their willingness to accept far inferior wages offsets their employers costs and tax burdens. Trust me, we are in an industry that has been tremendously impacted by this, and are well aware of others affected the same. 
Corporate greed has a nice ring and was an effective campaign slogan for some. But there is much more to the reality of our workforce, wages, and available employment than a simple campaign slogan. Almost 70% of the five million jobs created in the past three and a half years have been filled by immigrants to the US at who knows what type of pay. I wonder how many of the four and a half million jobs lost over the same period were good "living wage" positions? Who knows.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Lewzer said:


> I remember the smell of the Wonderbread cooking over on College St near Action U (Univ of Akron) 25 years ago on cold winter morning as I was walking to class.
> There not a better smell.
> 
> At least we still have Nickles in Navarre I think. They may have shut that down too. Driving south on SR 21 past the bread factory early in the morning on my way to Atwood used to make my mouth water.


I can ensure you they are not closed. At least I hope not other wise I don't have a job. I just shook a game of a fellow driver who has 25 years in at hostess brands and now has nothing. I was wrong I did not know the true story. This is a shame. I am sure names will be bought as they have been many times in this business and new jobs will be formed, however probably not enough to cover what are lost. My thoughts and prayers are with my fellow union brothers

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> Or maybe they could come in and ship the operations to China where they can get workers to work for $1 an hour with no benifits.


If keeping the company afloat and part of the jobs here while shipping part of the jobs overseas to survive in today's corporate taxed environment, so be it. It isn't optimum, and isn't the preferred choice of the American public, but it would be better than losing 100% of the jobs when the facility closes down and the product manufactured 100% in China with all profits staying in China...


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Lundy said:


> Approximately 7% of the private sector workforce is unionized. This is a large reduction from what it was even just 20 years ago. There are good reasons for the reductions.
> 
> Nearly 37% of all public employees are unionized. The sole reason for the big difference is that government doesn't out of business and are funded by taxpayers, they do not have to sell a product and make a profit to keep the doors open. We have seen the effects with the budget deficits and debt.


Kill me now. I'm a retired, unionized, public employee. Public employees generally provide services such as police, firefighters and teachers. Are you blaming us for deficits and debt?


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

PapawSmith said:


> Number one, the middle class has not been destroyed at all, in fact they are alive and strong, albeit somewhat depleted in recent years. Just take a drive through the neighborhoods and you will see people still live, overall, pretty damn well today. Second, you had six shots and you missed each time, but each of those you listed are contributing factors. Over regulation of most all industry and exceedingly high corporate taxes are the biggest drivers of the depletion of today's middle class due to these two factors pushing so many manufacturing jobs overseas.
> And the jobs that can't be shipped out are greatly being affected by the same regulations and taxes. But instead of losing employment overseas we are losing it here to immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. They pretty much totally ignore the costly regulations and their willingness to accept far inferior wages offsets their employers costs and tax burdens. Trust me, we are in an industry that has been tremendously impacted by this, and are well aware of others affected the same.
> Corporate greed has a nice ring and was an effective campaign slogan for some. But there is much more to the reality of our workforce, wages, and available employment than a simple campaign slogan. Almost 70% of the five million jobs created in the past three and a half years have been filled by immigrants to the US at who knows what type of pay. I wonder how many of the four and a half million jobs lost over the same period were good "living wage" positions? Who knows.


The rates are high but maybe you should read this.
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/markets/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

We can argue about who makes what or how much a union worker makes until we're blue in the face but I think almost all professions are overpaid except mine


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

> I can ensure you they are not closed. At least I hope not other wise I don't have a job.


That's good to hear nicklesman. Did you know Husky Hookers' dad? Last name Brewier? Man could he cook!


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> We can argue about who makes what or how much a union worker makes until we're blue in the face but I think almost all professions are overpaid except mine


That's funny.  Neither is mine.
[/COLOR] 
I want a dang HoHo now.


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

robertj298 said:


> I'm not saying your wrong but how do you know the cost is due to high wages? While wages effect cost its not the only factor that effects cost.


Great point, and one that I cannot answer - not employed by Hostess or have access to their financials. Mismanagement may have played a role.

This is my guess (yes, guess). The market was shrinking for one of two reasons - a) poor marketing or b) disposable income was shrinking due to people having no money (the more likely of the two). Additionally, while the market was shrinking, costs were most likely rising as an effect of inflation.

Therefore, as is the case in almost every business, the first place to reduce operating costs is in human resources. Costs either come at the expense of a particuler group of jobs or an overall reduction in wages.


----------



## Fish_Heads (Jun 2, 2008)

No more twinkies ? say it isn't so !!............I survived on those sugar filled styrofoam wonders all thru high school & college............they made me what I am today.........

uh gotta go I don't feel too good...............:beat-up:


----------



## ranger373v (Oct 26, 2012)

ironman172 said:


> and here I have been investing in jacketed lead, when I should have been stocking up on Twinkies and Hoho's  ....


i got 3 boxes...how bad you want em?


----------



## ranger373v (Oct 26, 2012)

robertj298 said:


> We can argue about who makes what or how much a union worker makes until we're blue in the face but I think almost all professions are overpaid except mine


mines underpaid too.. below national avarage


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

twinkie stuffer, now that's a phrase I never thought I'd hear on this site!

Sounds like Hostess might have been mismanaged and the unions might have taken too hard a line. Maybe too many managers or too much operating costs for their bakeries. Can you really be in a baker's union if you're a twinkie stuffer? Seems like unskilled labor to me, but they still should be paid a wage as a plant worker that would allow them to stay in the middle class. 

Hostess has been effected by other cheap knockoffs that have come into the market like Walmart's non-union brands. With the economy going south, people are looking for cheaper options than Hostess. I go with Little Debbie since they are cheaper, but they have raised their prices lately too. I'll only buy Hostess at one of their outlet stores. I've tried Walmart's knockoffs, but they're just not as good. 

The Hostess bakery by Akron U tortured me for 9 years! 5 years of college and 4 years at the high school next door to the bakery! Took advantage of the outlet store though!


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

"Twinkie Stuffer"... gotta do some research, that might violate the TOS


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Great point, and one that I cannot answer - not employed by Hostess or have access to their financials. Mismanagement may have played a role.
> 
> This is my guess (yes, guess). The market was shrinking for one of two reasons - a) poor marketing or b) disposable income was shrinking due to people having no money (the more likely of the two). Additionally, while the market was shrinking, costs were most likely rising as an effect of inflation.
> 
> Therefore, as is the case in almost every business, the first place to reduce operating costs is in human resources. Costs either come at the expense of a particuler group of jobs or an overall reduction in wages.



We have a local Bakery...that was Renowned for their donuts, etc, since 1937. One of the Grandsons has finally taken over and has opened more stores and got into more things trying to make more $$...needless to say he started reducing wages, cutting other costs by using less expensive corn sugar instead of Pure Cane Sugar, and cutting the size of the donuts...now he has lost business and the profits are drying up even more! Heck, dunkin donuts taste better now! Guess he should've left things alone and been happy with what he had!


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Agitation Free said:


> Kill me now. I'm a retired, unionized, public employee. Public employees generally provide services such as police, firefighters and teachers. Are you blaming us for deficits and debt?


We are to blame for some of it, for sure. Maybe not you and I personally, but you get the point. I'm a unionized public employee, union not by choice. If you don't know the waste that goes on within some public organizations, you're fooling yourself. It could be a lot better. The union survives by convincing uneducated and scared employees that the big bad wolf is about to get them. Convincing them they are too dumb and simple minded to negotiate wages and prove that they are hard working employees.  It's a crock, but I'll stop there.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Agitation Free said:


> Kill me now. I'm a retired, unionized, public employee. Public employees generally provide services such as police, firefighters and teachers. Are you blaming us for deficits and debt?


IMO, yes, to a large extent. Before you cut my head off, let me say, although not yet retired, I too am a unionized, public employee. There is no way our organization could even try to compete with a private business. We have to many dead beats, all making the same wages I am. There is no way I can get a raise without moving up. Moving up isn't possible either, as those positions are filled with older individuals (65+ years old) with seniority, that have no plans to retire, even though many could have done so 5+ years ago, they have no incentive to leave, as they've basically got it made, in that they have the easiest jobs, and are essentially untouchable by management, make twice what their civilian counterparts make, have great benefits, and "earn" 16 hours of leave per month. Some of the folks I work around don't like me, as I've not lost my work ethic, also due to their misplaced feelings of guilt, but when it takes 3 or 4 people to do what one can do on their own, something is wrong with that. Even at my lower pay grade, I still make twice of what my civilian counterparts make. How is that fair to them, especially when it is them who has to pay me? Sure, I work in somewhat dangerous situations/conditions, but I knew that going in, and don't feel particularly "entitled" to more compensation. You know, the average security guard pulls down a whopping $13 bucks and hour? 

Why should the employees of the government, who is in charge of enforcing the laws on the public, need protection from the same government? I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard the State union road workers were in a real tizzy, as they just found out the Chinese have invented a shovel that will hold itself up. Where I work, the only people that I've ever seen "need" the union were the ones that shouldn't have a job here in the first place. It used to be, it was considered public SERVICE. You make LESS than your civilian counterparts, in exchange for job security and a nice retirement, but, public pay has continued to go up, while the private sector falls behind. With lagging private sector pay, you have lower tax revenue, coupled with the effects of inflation, means governments can no longer afford to pay, and are going broke trying. Sorry. 

Man, I'm gonna miss Twinkies.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> We are to blame for some of it, for sure. Maybe not you and I personally, but you get the point. I'm a unionized public employee, union not by choice. If you don't know the waste that goes on within some public organizations, you're fooling yourself. It could be a lot better. The union survives by convincing uneducated and scared employees that the big bad wolf is about to get them. Convincing them they are too dumb and simple minded to negotiate wages and prove that they are hard working employees. It's a crock, but I'll stop there.


I'm from a family of Teamsters, I'm Management in a Fortune 500 Company...I've seen both sides...the Unions get a bad rap for protecting worthless workers and fighting for more $$ and bennies during tough times instead of waiting until the economy or profits improve. My opinion of BIG Business is NOT VERY GOOD RIGHT NOW!


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Amen brotha!



I Fish said:


> IMO, yes, to a large extent. Before you cut my head off, let me say, although not yet retired, I too am a unionized, public employee. There is no way our organization could even try to compete with a private business. We have to many dead beats, all making the same wages I am. There is no way I can get a raise without moving up. Moving up isn't possible either, as those positions are filled with older individuals (65+ years old) with seniority, that have no plans to retire, even though many could have done so 5+ years ago, they have no incentive to leave, as they've basically got it made, in that they have the easiest jobs, and are essentially untouchable by management, make twice what their civilian counterparts make, have great benefits, and "earn" 16 hours of leave per month. Some of the folks I work around don't like me, as I've not lost my work ethic, also due to their misplaced feelings of guilt, but when it takes 3 or 4 people to do what one can do on their own, something is wrong with that. Even at my lower pay grade, I still make twice of what my civilian counterparts make. How is that fair to them, especially when it is them who has to pay me? Sure, I work in somewhat dangerous situations/conditions, but I knew that going in, and don't feel particularly "entitled" to more compensation. You know, the average security guard pulls down a whopping $13 bucks and hour?
> 
> Why should the employees of the government, who is in charge of enforcing the laws on the public, need protection from the same government? I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard the State union road workers were in a real tizzy, as they just found out the Chinese have invented a shovel that will hold itself up. Where I work, the only people that I've ever seen "need" the union were the ones that shouldn't have a job here in the first place. It used to be, it was considered public SERVICE. You make LESS than your civilian counterparts, in exchange for job security and a nice retirement, but, public pay has continued to go up, while the private sector falls behind. With lagging private sector pay, you have lower tax revenue, coupled with the effects of inflation, means governments can no longer afford to pay, and are going broke trying. Sorry.
> 
> Man, I'm gonna miss Twinkies.


----------



## mjn88 (Feb 18, 2011)

Agitation Free said:


> Why? If people make a higher wage than more tax is collected. And we're in a $16 trillion dollar hole.


Do you understand that if you give everyone in the workforce a dollar, than the dollar becomes worthless? The world doesn't work if you give everyone working an across the board raise because inflation will increase greatly, while the dollar will decrease greatly. If life were that easy, it would have been done 200 years ago.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

ironman172 said:


> WOW, an honest public employee....my compliments to you sir....you hit it right on the head....I wish I could give you a raise, it sounds like you sure do deserve it!!


I imagine there are a lot of public employees will tell you most of their coworkers aren't worth what they make. And I imagine a lot of those coworkers say the same thing about them I know I was the only mailman worth what I made before I retired.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

mjn88 said:


> Do you understand that if you give everyone in the workforce a dollar, than the dollar becomes worthless? The world doesn't work if you give everyone working an across the board raise because inflation will increase greatly, while the dollar will decrease greatly. If life were that easy, it would have been done 200 years ago.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


This is only true due to one factor!....Greed!
Our economy could hum along and remain strong...but someone will soon tire of the same profits and begin to raise prices etc, and by the time they have over-priced the market and realized what they have done, they are in the "Crapper" again!
Sometimes IT IS FEASEABLE for Market equalization and to keep it there!

Big Business had it made in the early years during the Industrial Revolution because they could maximize profits due to the low wage scale and horrible conditions that workers faced...people were just a throw away piece of machinery!

Then we went through an Era of prosperity for the workers, due to the Unions.

Now we are heading back where all of the Companies have the power again...But we need BALANCE! I don't see it happening in my lifetime!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

robertj298 said:


> I imagine there are a lot of public employees will tell you most of their coworkers aren't worth what they make. And I imagine a lot of those coworkers say the same thing about them I know I was the only mailman worth what I made before I retired.


I suppose you could be right, but, I'm not just saying it about my co-workers, I'm included. Very few of us are worth what we are being paid. If you could spend a day with me, I think you'd have a different opinion. If it wasn't true, I wouldn't be here saying it. When some of them will tell you that you need to slow down as you are making them look bad, and they are serious, I just work harder. A couple have even gone so far as sabotage. It's not as though they can't keep up, they just refuse to. I know it doesn't make sense, as they are getting paid the same as I, and, it is thanks to the union that they are getting paid the same. It sounds strange, but, the union makes it hard to work hard. It's thanks to the union that there is a whole organization within the government that does nothing but deal with the unions, at the expense to the taxpayer of several million dollars per year.


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

The market decided this business did not provide enough of a benefit when compared to the cost of their product. That's what's called a free market economy. Unions have outgrown their worth. Public unions should be outlawed and not allowed. If you're a public servant you have no right to union representation. I heard the wife of a worker today on the radio stating the company told the union plain and simple they had a ruling from a judge to close the plant if they wouldn't accept the 8% pay cut, 4% of which would be given back next year. Union officials don't care about the worker or the company. They care about their power. Where's the money from the feds to keep this company open? They had it for the car companies who are still putting out the exact same product that still can't compete with the Yapanese models, no change there. I know, let's tax the rich more. Pretty soon the rich will be anyone who has a job... just wait and see. The death of America is happening before our eyes. Get ready for $8 Big Macs and $5.55/gallon gas. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Canada. Wonder how the fishing is in Mexico. I could probably get a job with the drug cartels.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

EnonEye said:


> The market decided this business did not provide enough of a benefit when compared to the cost of their product. That's what's called a free market economy. Unions have outgrown their worth. Public unions should be outlawed and not allowed. If you're a public servant you have no right to union representation. I heard the wife of a worker today on the radio stating the company told the union plain and simple they had a ruling from a judge to close the plant if they wouldn't accept the 8% pay cut, 4% of which would be given back next year. Union officials don't care about the worker or the company. They care about their power. Where's the money from the feds to keep this company open? They had it for the car companies who are still putting out the exact same product that still can't compete with the Yapanese models, no change there. I know, let's tax the rich more. Pretty soon the rich will be anyone who has a job... just wait and see. The death of America is happening before our eyes. Get ready for $8 Big Macs and $5.55/gallon gas. Don't believe me? Take a trip to Canada. Wonder how the fishing is in Mexico. I could probably get a job with the drug cartels.


So when the execs at hostess gave themselves up to an 80% raise right before they filed for chapter 11 last January thats just the free market at work?


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

robertj298 said:


> So when the execs at hostess gave themselves up to an 80% raise right before they filed for chapter 11 last January thats just the free market at work?


"Execs" is a very vague term and I don't have the answer that might make you feel better and I know what you're getting at but the owners of the business have the right to do whatever they want in regards to wages, regardless if it's for themselves or for their workers. At the same time they obviously have an interest in not killing the golden goose (the business). No one has a right to make a certain set wage except that which the market will bear in accordance with the skills they offer. If we don't like that fact we have options like getting a better education to better market ourselves thus making ourselves more valuable, working for another company, or starting our own business where we set the wages and make the rules. The days of walking out of high school, in some cases walking out of college with a degree, and making a middle class wage are over. We have been in a world market for decades and now its time to pay the fiddler. Sorry I'm so pessimistic, that's why I go fishing to get some therapy


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> So when the execs at hostess gave themselves up to an 80% raise right before they filed for chapter 11 last January thats just the free market at work?


IF that's true, no bankruptcy judge will allow it to stand if it's as absurd as you make it out to be. However, 80% raise makes for good propaganda. 

If they only received $30K a year for their service, an 80% raise would mean they now earn a total of $54,000. Without the true figures, the 80% claim is just bloviating.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

EnonEye said:


> "Execs" is a very vague term and I don't have the answer that might make you feel better and I know what you're getting at but the owners of the business have the right to do whatever they want in regards to wages, regardless if it's for themselves or for their workers. At the same time they obviously have an interest in not killing the golden goose (the business). No one has a right to make a certain set wage except that which the market will bear in accordance with the skills they offer. If we don't like that fact we have options like getting a better education to better market ourselves thus making ourselves more valuable, working for another company, or starting our own business where we set the wages and make the rules. The days of walking out of high school, in some cases walking out of college with a degree, and making a middle class wage are over. We have been in a world market for decades and now its time to pay the fiddler. Sorry I'm so pessimistic, that's why I go fishing to get some therapy


I completely agree . The owners have the right to do whatever they want as far as wages and the union has the right to accept that wage or go on strike.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

KaGee said:


> IF that's true, no bankruptcy judge will allow it to stand if it's as absurd as you make it out to be. However, 80% raise makes for good propaganda.
> 
> If they only received $30K a year for their service, an 80% raise would mean they now earn a total of $54,000. Without the true figures, the 80% claim is just bloviating.


I don't believe it was allowed to stand after it was found out but just the fact that a company would try to do that shows one of the reasons they are going under.


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

robertj298 said:


> I completely agree . The owners have the right to do whatever they want as far as wages and the union has the right to accept that wage or go on strike.


I just don't understand going on strike. There have been a few companies in my area where the workers went on strike. The companies hired non union workers who were happy to work for 20.00/hr instead of 25/hr. So the union guys went on strike and lost their jobs. I don't understand what a strike proves other than your able to sit on a sidewalk with a sign. The unions are as guilty as stealing money from the worker as the ceo of the company. I took a pay cut a few years ago because I understood the economy was on a down turn and that is what I had to do for the company to survive. Union workers are no different then welfare babies they believe they are entitled to everything.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

I work in the DSD part of of the grocery business and find it hard to believe that nobody has mentioned the REAL problem here so Ill try to help educate the root of the problem besides things like Unions. 15 years ago Wonder was a leader in the bread industry with only 4-5 other companies in the business but go to your local Krogers and count how many bread companies there are now, ( Im not sure of the exact number ) but Im guessing there are 20 companies in your local store, I know from talking to all the bread guys that if its your week to be on sale, youll do ok sales wise, but the next 4-5 weeks will kill you because the customers are NOT brand loyal and will buy whatever brand is on sale that week, plus the bread industry has been changing and Wonder did not ever do anything to keep up, for example the Brownberrys and Pepperidge Farm's started with the specialty breads ( 15 grains, whole wheat, rye, etc) while Wonder stayed with its "White Bread" never adding variety so that really hurt them as did the fact that health wise, White Breads are now considered non healthy so that also added to the downword spiral of the bread part of the business. Another thing is that many companies bid to get the "Private Label" breads for Target, Krogers, WM and Meijers but Wonder never bid on those opportunities to allow more volume to make up for lost sales. Basically the industry changed around them and they did nothing to help themselves, thats a sure way to get left behind in an ever competitive business like the bread Industry is. 

Now when they went into bancrupty 4 years ago, ever since then, many folks wanted to buy the cakes side of the business ( which was very profitable) but no one ever wanted the bread side and the Unions held firm that it was an all or none deal, that really hurt them as many big players wanted the cakes, ( Pepsico and Bimbo for example) but the deals never came through. 

In my opinion, the company has been, for many years been on a long slide and we all know what happens once you start that downward slide, the ball just picks up speed and before long , no matter who did what, when or made this much money will help. 

I guess what Im trying to say is that the company did not keep up with its competition and lost out because the cakes division could not carry the breadside's loss forever and the straw finally broke the camels back.

Being in the industry, this is what i saw....

Last point, Im pretty sure in a few months, someone will buy out the rights and take the company back but without the bread

Salmonid


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

mjn88 said:


> Do you understand that if you give everyone in the workforce a dollar, than the dollar becomes worthless? The world doesn't work if you give everyone working an across the board raise because inflation will increase greatly, while the dollar will decrease greatly. If life were that easy, it would have been done 200 years ago.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Don't go putting words in my mouth. I never said give everyone in the work force a dollar and I never said that everyone working deserves an across the board raise.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Salmonid said:


> I work in the DSD part of of the grocery business and find it hard to believe that nobody has mentioned the REAL problem here so Ill try to help educate the root of the problem besides things like Unions. 15 years ago Wonder was a leader in the bread industry with only 4-5 other companies in the business but go to your local Krogers and count how many bread companies there are now, ( Im not sure of the exact number ) but Im guessing there are 20 companies in your local store, I know from talking to all the bread guys that if its your week to be on sale, youll do ok sales wise, but the next 4-5 weeks will kill you because the customers are NOT brand loyal and will buy whatever brand is on sale that week, plus the bread industry has been changing and Wonder did not ever do anything to keep up, for example the Brownberrys and Pepperidge Farm's started with the specialty breads ( 15 grains, whole wheat, rye, etc) while Wonder stayed with its "White Bread" never adding variety so that really hurt them as did the fact that health wise, White Breads are now considered non healthy so that also added to the downword spiral of the bread part of the business. Another thing is that many companies bid to get the "Private Label" breads for Target, Krogers, WM and Meijers but Wonder never bid on those opportunities to allow more volume to make up for lost sales. Basically the industry changed around them and they did nothing to help themselves, thats a sure way to get left behind in an ever competitive business like the bread Industry is.
> 
> Now when they went into bancrupty 4 years ago, ever since then, many folks wanted to buy the cakes side of the business ( which was very profitable) but no one ever wanted the bread side and the Unions held firm that it was an all or none deal, that really hurt them as many big players wanted the cakes, ( Pepsico and Bimbo for example) but the deals never came through.
> 
> ...


Finally someone with some first hand knowledge of whats been going on. Its pretty easy for us to just sit here and say its the unions fault or its managements fault without any first hand knowledge of the situation.


----------



## Eriesteamer (Mar 9, 2007)

I win on the smell and bread thing. We had a wonder bread here. now to lewzer the sniffer. not only did we smell fresh bread at the bakery but at home. we could get 4 loafs at about 50 cents that just need a warm up for about hour to rise then and into oven and out came 2 loaves. man the smell was top and the wait to bake was to much for me. now as my mom took out the bread you bet I had a knife to cut off the end and burned my hands get it as mom wanted it too. With the real butter melting down it man I ate it fast as ever and to get another end as we called the ends. as my mom could eat them faster then I. and with 2 loafs ends for her and 2 for for me we both was satified and stuffed. now to what the heck we do with the other 2 unbaked loaves LOL roll them into pieza shells and man they was top piaza around. mmmmm mmmm today you can buy it raw and bake it but it never beat the wonderbread thing.got buy it frozen at store not wonderbread ones. my mother made a very good 2 loaves at home and it was about same but then oh well. she also rolled them into peiza shells. not many to day will do that home made thing. and as I type I know of no other bakery that sell it frest out the bakery to take home bake it.
To Adam if you loose your job we have a pescas bakery here and my friend works there. maybe pull you in it if you need a job. no garrantee but we can try or cry. LOL if they never need another guy. he saids he makes fair money there and they let him take a loaf home every day as keep him from stealing one. and as a bonus to. Well back when world was 11 I can still remember bread lines. no one had money thus some how there was free bread hand outs. now with welfare theres no need for them.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Wonderbread and Twinkies are disgusting crap. They probably kill as many people as cigarettes. Good riddance. 

Minnowhead, take that stuff somewhere else. You just offended 51 percent of the people in Ohio.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

I Fish said:


> IMO, yes, to a large extent. Before you cut my head off, let me say, although not yet retired, I too am a unionized, public employee. There is no way our organization could even try to compete with a private business. We have to many dead beats, all making the same wages I am. There is no way I can get a raise without moving up. Moving up isn't possible either, as those positions are filled with older individuals (65+ years old) with seniority, that have no plans to retire, even though many could have done so 5+ years ago, they have no incentive to leave, as they've basically got it made, in that they have the easiest jobs, and are essentially untouchable by management, make twice what their civilian counterparts make, have great benefits, and "earn" 16 hours of leave per month. Some of the folks I work around don't like me, as I've not lost my work ethic, also due to their misplaced feelings of guilt, but when it takes 3 or 4 people to do what one can do on their own, something is wrong with that. Even at my lower pay grade, I still make twice of what my civilian counterparts make. How is that fair to them, especially when it is them who has to pay me? Sure, I work in somewhat dangerous situations/conditions, but I knew that going in, and don't feel particularly "entitled" to more compensation. You know, the average security guard pulls down a whopping $13 bucks and hour?
> 
> Why should the employees of the government, who is in charge of enforcing the laws on the public, need protection from the same government? I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard the State union road workers were in a real tizzy, as they just found out the Chinese have invented a shovel that will hold itself up. Where I work, the only people that I've ever seen "need" the union were the ones that shouldn't have a job here in the first place. It used to be, it was considered public SERVICE. You make LESS than your civilian counterparts, in exchange for job security and a nice retirement, but, public pay has continued to go up, while the private sector falls behind. With lagging private sector pay, you have lower tax revenue, coupled with the effects of inflation, means governments can no longer afford to pay, and are going broke trying. Sorry.
> 
> Man, I'm gonna miss Twinkies.


I've seen the good and bad of unions. Officers of my union ended up with administrative positions. Still do. They retire after 30 years and go back to double dip. They're not doing that in a union position . They do it in the administration positions. Before putting all the blame on unions, check to see how fat the administration is. Then talk deficits and debt. Unions were formed to protect workers from unfair labor practices and unsafe working conditions. Without them, workers are at the mercy of the employer. A lot of employers will take advantage of workers that are not organized or represented. I'll concede. Unions have become a necessary evil but non the less necessary. IMO.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Agitation Free said:


> I've seen the good and bad of unions. Officers of my union ended up with administrative positions. Still do. They retire after 30 years and go back to double dip. They're not doing that in a union position . They do it in the administration positions. Before putting all the blame on unions, check to see how fat the administration is. Then talk deficits and debt. Unions were formed to protect workers from unfair labor practices and unsafe working conditions. Without them, workers are at the mercy of the employer. A lot of employers will take advantage of workers that are not organized or represented. I'll concede. Unions have become a necessary evil, but non the less necessary. IMO.


That's why 93% of the workforce is non-union? Those 93% are shaking in their boots every day that they'll lose their jobs? Not so. Labor LAWS are in place to protect the workers from illegal practices. For the most part, a bad employer, if really that bad, will not stay in business nowadays because people won't work for them. A "Union" is a company in and of itself that skims off the top of the employees' wages to offer them a "sense of security" much like the mafia (but I'm sure it's very different). 5 years in a union shop was way too long for me.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Farewell old friend.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Salmonid said:


> I work in the DSD part of of the grocery business and find it hard to believe that nobody has mentioned the REAL problem here so Ill try to help educate the root of the problem besides things like Unions. 15 years ago Wonder was a leader in the bread industry with only 4-5 other companies in the business but go to your local Krogers and count how many bread companies there are now, ( Im not sure of the exact number ) but Im guessing there are 20 companies in your local store, I know from talking to all the bread guys that if its your week to be on sale, youll do ok sales wise, but the next 4-5 weeks will kill you because the customers are NOT brand loyal and will buy whatever brand is on sale that week, plus the bread industry has been changing and Wonder did not ever do anything to keep up, for example the Brownberrys and Pepperidge Farm's started with the specialty breads ( 15 grains, whole wheat, rye, etc) while Wonder stayed with its "White Bread" never adding variety so that really hurt them as did the fact that health wise, White Breads are now considered non healthy so that also added to the downword spiral of the bread part of the business. Another thing is that many companies bid to get the "Private Label" breads for Target, Krogers, WM and Meijers but Wonder never bid on those opportunities to allow more volume to make up for lost sales. Basically the industry changed around them and they did nothing to help themselves, thats a sure way to get left behind in an ever competitive business like the bread Industry is.
> 
> Now when they went into bancrupty 4 years ago, ever since then, many folks wanted to buy the cakes side of the business ( which was very profitable) but no one ever wanted the bread side and the Unions held firm that it was an all or none deal, that really hurt them as many big players wanted the cakes, ( Pepsico and Bimbo for example) but the deals never came through.
> 
> ...


Salmonid,
I have been around the bread business since the day I was born. I have been delivering it for the past ten. Most of what you said is 100 percent the truth. There are lots of factors that go into who buys what when. Time of the month is key. The first of the month people seem to spend more freely. There are brand shoppers too. The home pride wheat bread is the number one selling wheat bread nation wide and that is a fact. It does not matter if they charge 5 dollars for that loaf there are people that would buy it. As for private lable breads they do cost less but they recoop there money by us drivers not getting paid full commision on the product. Instead of our normal 9 percent commision we are paid 6.5 percent on it. As far as the compinies in the store, I dont know about your market but the cleveland market is limited. You have to remember the product. The brownberry, pepprich farms, even oraldno are more of specialty breads. Wonder invested lots of money to try to compete in this market which was an absolute fail. When it comes down to your normal white and wheat breads our market consists of wonder, Nickles (my employer), and Shwebels. Now Shwebels also carries the millbrook line too. You can throw in you private label breads but it is being delvered by one of the three. Hostess brands have made a lot of bad desicions and have invested money in a lot of stupid things such as the smart breads and there breads to grain breads. They also invested a lot into whole grain breads which were a flop. These companies also have to purchase shelf space in these stores. I am sure some wrong decisions were made here too. There are alot of things that went wrong with the company. As I said before I have personal friends that are effected. I will be effected as they pay into my pension fund. It is a shame that a greedy unio put all the workers out of business. It was not the workers fault they were doing as they were suggested to do. Trust me I have been here at contract time. I hope some of this info is usefull to some of you. I have a lot more I could add but I will keep it at this for now.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

If Ohio and other states would just legalize pot like Colorado and Washington, it would be a HUGE BOON to the twinkie making business. It would be a win/win for everyone!


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

I also want to add the Wonder drivers took two seperate pay cuts to keep this company going. They were suppose tobe recooped of there losses when business turned around. It is a shame these two unions (bakers and teamsters0 were not on the same page. It just goes to show how greedy some can be.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Like also said the names will be picked up down the road by another company it happens all the time. I highly doubt you will not see twinkies any more. Some company will by the hostess brand along with the wonder/ home pride name. It will create more jobs I am sure but no where enough to cover what was lost. It is a sadday in the business for all.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

ironman172 said:


> ....that's funny I don't care who you are


I agree.  That's the best line yet...


----------



## krm (Jul 28, 2007)

http://www.unionfacts.com/union/Bakery,_Confectionary,_Tobacco_Workers_&_Grain_Millers

Funny that the members scream that the "big business" leaders are making what they decide to be too much money, yet their union leaders appear to be making out pretty well, too. 

Maybe if those leaders really cared about their brothers, they'd kick back half their salaries to help those out of work.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Mushijobah said:


> Classic. Thanks unions, ya blew it again! I liked the link provided earlier from teamsters.com or teamsters.org.......no way.....unions aren't biased!!!


I'd be willing to bet that of all the businesses that have gone under in the last 50 years or so, a vast majority of them were non-union...

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

M.Magis said:


> Thats a good question, and I personally dont know the answer. BTW, I made that number up. But, I do know that for the most part those jobs were unskilled labor that 99% of Americans could do. A jobs hourly wage should be dependent on how skilled the person doing that job is, and how many people could step in and take over. Local living expense should also play a role. But a pension for unskilled labor? Come on, thats greed plain and simple.


What defines "skilled" labor? Seriously.... i've never understood that title. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> I'd be willing to bet that of all the businesses that have gone under in the last 50 years or so, a vast majority of them were non-union...
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Well, since 93% of the businesses are non-union, that makes perfect sense. It still doesn't bring the twinkies back though. My local quickie mart is sold out already...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Hostess employees gambled, and Hostess called their bluff. It's amazing that unionized workers will gather to hear their leaders speak, being told that if they wait, they will get what they want, and without the union, they will not have a job. This time, quite the contrary...
> [/COLOR]
> People need to pick up a book, learn something and lift themselves up. Make yourself useful. If they think they're worth more, prove it - make it so.




Sounds like the american people listening to the candidates before an election.... yet everyone still b!tch3s......

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> What defines "skilled" labor? Seriously.... i've never understood that title.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Probably more closely related to, for example, someone with a higher education, that has required much training and experience, and quite possibly annual training and further certifications every year...(you know,i invested in themselves so they can EARN a higher pay more prestigious job)...not like positioning a cupcake on a conveyor to receive frosting or doing a repetitious job that anyone could do with 10 minutes training (i.e. - sit here and greet people as they walk in.) Twinkie taste tester would probably be one of those "skilled" labor jobs.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Probably more closely related to, for example, someone with a higher education, that has required much training and experience, and quite possibly annual training and further certifications every year...(you know,i invested in themselves so they can EARN a higher pay more prestigious job)...not like positioning a cupcake on a conveyor to receive frosting or doing a repetitious job that anyone could do with 10 minutes training (i.e. - sit here and greet people as they walk in.) Twinkie taste tester would probably be one of those "skilled" labor jobs.


So anyone that works on an assembly line type job would not be considered skilled labor? 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

imalt said:


> I just don't understand going on strike. There have been a few companies in my area where the workers went on strike. The companies hired non union workers who were happy to work for 20.00/hr instead of 25/hr. So the union guys went on strike and lost their jobs. I don't understand what a strike proves other than your able to sit on a sidewalk with a sign. The unions are as guilty as stealing money from the worker as the ceo of the company. I took a pay cut a few years ago because I understood the economy was on a down turn and that is what I had to do for the company to survive. Union workers are no different then welfare babies they believe they are entitled to everything.


Wow is all I am going to say to this. Union workers take pay cuts to keep companies afloat all the time. This may be the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this sight. The drivers have taken two pay cuts to keep that company open. I really hope you do not mean what you said. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Agitation Free said:


> I don't agree with the "just be happy you got a job" position. Wages have been going down and the cost of living is always going up. *It's in the best interest of our country to provide us with jobs that pay a respectable living wage*. Most people would prefer to work and provide for themselves, than depend on government assistance. You can't provide for yourself on minimum wage, how could a family do it? The labor force is always at the bottom. CEO's first, shareholders second and labor last. We are still in a recession and with every job lost, we're only digging ourselves in deeper. We need jobs that pay a respectable living wage.


Sounds like you are a Socialist or a Communist. Not calling names, but in those type on economic systems the Government provides jobs to the people not private enterprise. It didn't help the USSR... I still believe in Capitalism...People investing in businees to make products the consumer wants which create jobs.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> So anyone that works on an assembly line type job would not be considered skilled labor?
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


It depends on their roll. If any position can be easily replaced by someone that has had no training or experience in the field, I would say no. If they are taking measurements, calibrating, and having to make active decisions on things, yes. Tightening the left side lug nuts on a car going down an assembly line with an air ratchet...not so much. Aligning glass fiber into an etched v groove with exacting tolerances of +/1 1.5 microns, yes. Not many people can do the latter...but still, assembly.


----------



## Slatebar (Apr 9, 2011)

sbreech said:


> That's why 93% of the workforce is non-union? Those 93% are shaking in their boots every day that they'll lose their jobs? Not so. Labor LAWS are in place to protect the workers from illegal practices. For the most part, a bad employer, if really that bad, will not stay in business nowadays because people won't work for them. A "Union" is a company in and of itself that skims off the top of the employees' wages to offer them a "sense of security" much like the mafia (but I'm sure it's very different). 5 years in a union shop was way too long for me.


What Union is skimming ??


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

GM got bail out money from the federal government. Why is Hostess different? 

Why does one company get protection from the federal government and one does not?


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

nicklesman said:


> Wow is all I am going to say to this. Union workers take pay cuts to keep companies afloat all the time. This may be the most ignorant statement I have ever read on this sight. The drivers have taken two pay cuts to keep that company open. I really hope you do not mean what you said.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Yeah, I can't wrap my head around that statement either.... our last contract where I work came with a 1% raise over 3 years, a higher health care premium, higher deductibles and copays, less hours scheduled.... yet the company couldn't wait to tell the media how many records they broke in sales and profit. We had to settle with that contract because the company stated that with the war ending in afganastan, "there could possibly be a chance that sales could decline by 10% to the dept. Of defense".... talk about a slap in the face! Thank you for busting your butt for the last 3 years and driving us to the top of the heap, but we can't offer you anything in return....

B.T.W. our CEO just sold his 40+% of the company's stock for 2.9 billion dollars.... and I can't make $50,000 a year. And believe it or not, the transaction is being investigated because the remaining shareholders believe he undersold the stock. How rich is rich enough!?!?! He made more money in one transaction, than all of the employees that have ever worked for this company in it's 60 year existence. Now how can anyone say that unions are the greedy one's that destroy a company?!?!?!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

sbreech said:


> That's why 93% of the workforce is non-union? Those 93% are shaking in their boots every day that they'll lose their jobs? Not so. Labor LAWS are in place to protect the workers from illegal practices. For the most part, a bad employer, if really that bad, will not stay in business nowadays because people won't work for them. A "Union" is a company in and of itself that skims off the top of the employees' wages to offer them a "sense of security" much like the mafia (but I'm sure it's very different). 5 years in a union shop was way too long for me.


It's 88%. Lose your non-union job. Try paying a lawyer to get it back without an income. Labor Laws are different for private sector employees and public sector employees. I was the grievance chairman of my union for several years. Any member of a union can be terminated for numerous reasons including negligence of duty and poor performance. If a union worker is not performing his duties adequately, it's the responsibility of the administration to bring charges against the individual. A disciplinary hearing with proof of the charge is hard to defend. Thus, a progressive disciplinary process can guarantee that if the employee does not improve or perform his duties satisfactorily, he or she will be terminated. There's not much the union can do. I tried to save members jobs. Sometimes I could but sometimes there was too much evidence that warranted termination. Last step is arbitration. Lose there and the decision is binding. If the administration does not go after these individuals then it's the administrations fault. IT'S THEIR JOB TO SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES! If you were not happy with your union and believe they misrepresented you, file a complaint. Union members of a government employer can file unfair labor charges against the union with the State Employee Relations Board.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> It depends on their roll. If any position can be easily replaced by someone that has had no training or experience in the field, I would say no. If they are taking measurements, calibrating, and having to make active decisions on things, yes. Tightening the left side lug nuts on a car going down an assembly line with an air ratchet...not so much. Aligning glass fiber into an etched v groove with exacting tolerances of +/1 1.5 microns, yes. Not many people can do the latter...but still, assembly.


So, who makes the call on what is "skilled" and what isn't? 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Hook N Book (Apr 7, 2004)

PapawSmith said:


> I simply realize this issue straddles a fine line and you seem to be the most prolific axe wielder of late.


Ahhhh...! Sounds like you miss me.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Agitation Free said:


> Why? If people make a higher wage than more tax is collected. And we're in a $16 trillion dollar hole.


Outside of when that money is paid to Government or public workers! When they get a raise, taxes have to go up to pay them (unless the Treasury just prints more money).

Say you are in the 25% tax bracket. You get a $1.00 raise, You only pay 25 cents in taxes so you pays the other 75 cents? The private citizen. Government and public workers are a drain on the economy.

In 1990 96 private employees supported 4 government workers. In 1948 88 private workers supported 12 government workers. Now there are 83 private workers for every 17 government workers. Can anyone say big government?


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Agitation Free said:


> It's 88%. Lose your non-union job. Try paying a lawyer to get it back without an income. Labor Laws are different for private sector employees and public sector employees. I was the grievance chairman of my union for several years. Any member of a union can be terminated for numerous reasons including negligence of duty and poor performance. If a union worker is not performing his duties adequately, it's the responsibility of the administration to bring charges against the individual. A disciplinary hearing with proof of the charge is hard to defend. Thus, a progressive disciplinary process can guarantee that if the employee does not improve or perform his duties satisfactory, he or she will be terminated. There's not much the union can do. I tried to save members jobs. Sometimes I could but sometimes there was too much evidence that warranted termination. Last step is arbitration. Lose there and the decision is binding. If the administration does not go after these individuals then it's the administrations fault. It's their job to SUPERVISE and DISCIPLINE employees. If you were not happy with your union and believe they misrepresented you, then any member of a union can file unfair labor charges against the union with the State Employee Relations Board.


Thank you! 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Slatebar said:


> What Union is skimming ??


Union dues. Maybe it's considered "insurance" or whatever, but when we went on strike, after paying dues for years, we received $40 per week, and our "union rep" had convinced the masses to go on strike because the 8% increase over 3 years wasn't enough. After being off work for 3 months, we went back for 9%. I tried to explain to the other goobers on the line that it would take YEARS to make back the lost wages with the extra 1%, but they seemed to have some pride in fighting for something so little - and the high-rolling union leader rolled back to his office in his $80k job grinning from ear to ear because our union dues were also increased by 5%. The workers were so blinded by their union messiah that I couldn't take any more, left, and made more money with better benefits because I continued my education and bettered myself rather than paying some overseeing entitity that offered me some mystical protection of a job, of better benefits, of safer work conditions, and fair labor. And with examples like Hostess, we see that that veil of protection is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the end - only those employees are out the union dues that they had paid all those years.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> So, who makes the call on what is "skilled" and what isn't?
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Using common sense is much easier than quantitating that in writing...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Union dues. Maybe it's considered "insurance" or whatever, but when we went on strike, after paying dues for years, we received $40 per week, and our "union rep" had convinced the masses to go on strike because the 8% increase over 3 years wasn't enough. After being off work for 3 months, we went back for 9%. I tried to explain to the other goobers on the line that it would take YEARS to make back the lost wages with the extra 1%, but they seemed to have some pride in fighting for something so little - and the high-rolling union leader rolled back to his office in his $80k job grinning from ear to ear because our union dues were also increased by 5%. The workers were so blinded by their union messiah that I couldn't take any more, left, and made more money with better benefits because I continued my education and bettered myself rather than paying some overseeing entitity that offered me some mystical protection of a job, of better benefits, of safer work conditions, and fair labor. And with examples like Hostess, we see that that veil of protection is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the end - only those employees are out the union dues that they had paid all those years.


A 9% raise!?!?! I've never seen a contract that came with a 9% raise!!!
And do you really think the now former owners of hostess are broke??? My guess is they walked away with a healthy sum of money. Maybe money that could've helped to save that company.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> A 9% raise!?!?! I've never seen a contract that came with a 9% raise!!!
> And do you really think the now former owners of hostess are broke??? My guess is they walked away with a healthy sum of money. Maybe money that could've helped to save that company.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


That was 9% over 3 years. 3% per year. We were OCAW at the time (Oil chemical & Atomic Workers). And to be honest, I HOPE the owners walked away with a healthy sum. They owned it, and it would be ludicrous for them to walk away empty handed after all these years of business by spending every last penny. Step away from the table while you're still ahead, now matter how much we like Twinkies...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Using common sense is much easier than quantitating that in writing...


What i'm getting at is you stated that people should be paid by how "skilled" they are. If that was the case, someone would have to decide what is "skilled", how much "skill" it requires and the effects of said "skill" on the product being developed. Then a pay scale would have to be developed. And everyone within the company would have to be given the opportunity to either prove they are "skilled" enough to perform the task, or receive the proper training to perform the "skilled" task.... wait, that's what they do in a union!?!?!? That's why different jobs within a union pay more than others and require longer training times than others. That's crazy that a union would give an employee that kind of opportunity!?!?!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

sbreech said:


> Union dues. Maybe it's considered "insurance" or whatever, but when we went on strike, after paying dues for years, we received $40 per week, and our "union rep" had convinced the masses to go on strike because the 8% increase over 3 years wasn't enough. After being off work for 3 months, we went back for 9%. I tried to explain to the other goobers on the line that it would take YEARS to make back the lost wages with the extra 1%, but they seemed to have some pride in fighting for something so little - and the high-rolling union leader rolled back to his office in his $80k job grinning from ear to ear because our union dues were also increased by 5%. The workers were so blinded by their union messiah that I couldn't take any more, left, and made more money with better benefits because I continued my education and bettered myself rather than paying some overseeing entitity that offered me so me mystical protection of a job, of better benefits, of safer work conditions, and fair labor. And with examples like Hostess, we see that that veil of protection is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the end - only those employees are out the union dues that they had paid all those years.


,,,
Chances are even though you aren't union a lot of the benefits you receive and having a safe work environment is because there are unions


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> That was 9% over 3 years. 3% per year. We were OCAW at the time (Oil chemical & Atomic Workers). And to be honest, I HOPE the owners walked away with a healthy sum. They owned it, and it would be ludicrous for them to walk away empty handed after all these years of business by spending every last penny. Step away from the table while you're still ahead, now matter how much we like Twinkies...


I agree, it was their company and no they shouldn't walk away empty. But why do the union haters feel like the employees should give up their money, their insurance or their retirement so that the owners can continue to prosper? Do people really believe that the union employees were collecting more money than the executives and non union employees? It's a bad deal that the company closed it's doors, but to say it was all because the union wouldn't accept a pay cut is ludicrous. It's just an easy out.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> What i'm getting at is you stated that people should be paid by how "skilled" they are. If that was the case, someone would have to decide what is "skilled", how much "skill" it requires and the effects of said "skill" on the product being developed. Then a pay scale would have to be developed. And everyone within the company would have to be given the opportunity to either prove they are "skilled" enough to perform the task, or receive the proper training to perform the "skilled" task.... wait, that's what they do in a union!?!?!? That's why different jobs within a union pay more than others and require longer training times than others. That's crazy that a union would give an employee that kind of opportunity!?!?!
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


That is totally understandable, but most companies, even those not union, offer opportunities to move up based on proven abilities, skillsets, education attained, etc. That's what the boss evaluates. Like in my field - it's education, years of training, and certifications that boost us up the ladder. What I did at my union job (and, a few non-union jobs), was nothing that required any real special skill or ability. Anyone could do it. everyone in those roles were easily replaced because of that. Pursuing training in computer networking (after a Bachelors degree), attaining a CCNA along with various Microsoft certifications have given me a much more secure feeling in my future than OCAW ever did, and way more money than those jobs should ever pay anyone. EVERY job is important in the world - it's not about degrading others - but we should get out what we put in, whether it's education, training, or sweat off your brow (all 3 are equally satisfying if performed at the right parts of life - I wouldn't want be 65 and installing carpet any more.)


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Snakecharmer said:


> Outside of when that money is paid to Government or public workers! When they get a raise, taxes have to go up to pay them (unless the Treasury just prints more money).
> 
> Say you are in the 25% tax bracket. You get a $1.00 raise, You only pay 25 cents in taxes so you pays the other 75 cents? The private citizen. Government and public workers are a drain on the economy.
> 
> In 1990 96 private employees supported 4 government workers. In 1948 88 private workers supported 12 government workers. Now there are 83 private workers for every 17 government workers. Can anyone say big government?


Not sure where you got your info from but I don't know of any government employee that hasn't taken a pay cut or is paying more for health care or isn't forced into taking fulough days. Taxes are going up because of operating expenses. Not wages and fringes.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Bad Bub said:


> I agree, it was their company and no they shouldn't walk away empty. But why do the union haters feel like the employees should give up their money, their insurance or their retirement so that the owners can continue to prosper? Do people really believe that the union employees were collecting more money than the executives and non union employees? It's a bad deal that the company closed it's doors, but to say it was all because the union wouldn't accept a pay cut is ludicrous. It's just an easy out.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I guees the union or the union pension fund could buy the assets and run the company the way they want to,,


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> I agree, it was their company and no they shouldn't walk away empty. But why do the union haters feel like the employees should give up their money, their insurance or their retirement so that the owners can continue to prosper? Do people really believe that the union employees were collecting more money than the executives and non union employees? It's a bad deal that the company closed it's doors, but to say it was all because the union wouldn't accept a pay cut is ludicrous. It's just an easy out.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I'll agree with that too. BUT, if the company really WAS on a downward spiral, and that 8% paycut could have helped them stay afloat during these crappy times, then it may be a viable truth. 18,500 employees x avg salary - 8% could have been a big savings. Not that I'd be happy with taking a pay cut, but I have before, and it has been for the best in the long run. Perhaps they could have included a catch-up clause in their contracts like some teachers' contracts when they have to take a pay freeze for a couple years? Sometimes thinking outside the box (I hate that term by the way) can bring solutions...or offering extra vacation / holiday / personal time in lieu of the 8% until times get better... whatever it is, the 8% might not have been the cause, but it sure does appear publicly to be the straw that broke the Twinkie's back.

If it were a closed shop, then yes, probably, the collective was earning more than the management / executives - collectively speaking. just a guess, but 18,500 employees earn a lot of money combined.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Union dues. Maybe it's considered "insurance" or whatever, but when we went on strike, after paying dues for years, we received $40 per week, and our "union rep" had convinced the masses to go on strike because the 8% increase over 3 years wasn't enough. After being off work for 3 months, we went back for 9%. I tried to explain to the other goobers on the line that it would take YEARS to make back the lost wages with the extra 1%, but they seemed to have some pride in fighting for something so little - and the high-rolling union leader rolled back to his office in his $80k job grinning from ear to ear because our union dues were also increased by 5%. The workers were so blinded by their union messiah that I couldn't take any more, left, and made more money with better benefits because I continued my education and bettered myself rather than paying some overseeing entitity that offered me some mystical protection of a job, of better benefits, of safer work conditions, and fair labor. And with examples like Hostess, we see that that veil of protection is nothing but smoke and mirrors in the end - only those employees are out the union dues that they had paid all those years.


One more thing regarding the strike over a 1% raise. I have no idea how old you are, or how long you have until retirement, but i'm a "younger" guy with a long time till I will be old enough to consider retirement. In my mind set over the 1% vs 3 months off, it becomes a give or take. It may take 10 years to regain those lost wages over a strike, but i'll always have that 1% from that moment on. That's a better pay rate that i'll be making 30 years from now than I would have if we didn't fight for it. We have these problems within our union as well where the guys that are 5-10 years from retirement just want to sign the contract and get out. But that's not what a union was designed for. It's designed for the protection and betterment of all of it's employees that are in good standing. And if the companies learn how to use the contract in their favor, it would be for the betterment of themselves as well. All of the company rules are in that little contract book they give us, and if an employee is in violation of it, they have NO defense. (As was stated in an earlier post) 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> One more thing regarding the strike over a 1% raise. I have no idea how old you are, or how long you have until retirement, but i'm a "younger" guy with a long time till I will be old enough to consider retirement. In my mind set over the 1% vs 3 months off, it becomes a give or take. It may take 10 years to regain those lost wages over a strike, but i'll always have that 1% from that moment on. That's a better pay rate that i'll be making 30 years from now than I would have if we didn't fight for it. We have these problems within our union as well where the guys that are 5-10 years from retirement just want to sign the contract and get out. But that's not what a union was designed for. It's designed for the protection and betterment of all of it's employees that are in good standing. And if the companies learn how to use the contract in their favor, it would be for the betterment of themselves as well. All of the company rules are in that little contract book they give us, and if an employee is in violation of it, they have NO defense. (As was stated in an earlier post)
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I was a young pup when I walked away from that job too...at 29. 

We had the same little contract books too (different contract obviously) and it was quite entertaining watching some employees use that book to push the envelope and flaunt their unionhood to the floor supers that would never just tell them to shut up and get to work out of fear of the employee running to the stewards. They weren't the norm, but it was funny to see... I don't see that type of behavior anymore, but maybe it's just because I'm getting older (not OLD, older). It was announced on Wednesday that my old workplace is offering early retirement and voluntary layoffs, and if they don't get enough, mandatory layoffs. Something has got to give in this economy, or nobody's going to be working, and we won't have any Twinkies.


----------



## Slatebar (Apr 9, 2011)

I am one man who will never say my Union Skimmed me,,, If anything I owe them, In fact I do owe them, I owe them my life. I am United Mine Workers, 34 active underground, 10 inactive disabled retired. The very most I ever paid the UMWA was 53 bucks a month. My pension even before insurance is almost40 times that much each month. Plus free insurance (everything above Medicare)for wife and I for life. But most of all I had 34 years of pretty much knowing when I walked in that hole I would walk out that night. Not like the non union boys at Upper Big Brance or Melville. Want some interesting reading google fatal accidents at each of those mines. One of those boys that died was so afraid of the job and afraid of his employer that he wrote a letter to his sister about the mine... No man should ever have to be exposed to those types of safety violations. My Union neverr tried to force me to vote or donate to anyone.. If a man messed up he went down the road kicking a can, fast.. We had safety rights and I never seen them abused. I can't change your mind about a Union and won't try, but nobody will ever change mine. Like the other guy said, if you don't care for Unions then give back everything the Unions have gave you...

I have been on many many strikes in my life, I can honestly say that only a very few were called by the International, I do not remember any strikes over money. Money was the first thing the companies offered. Te majority of strikes were safety/ventilation related.


----------



## jonnythfisherteen2 (Mar 5, 2011)

they are? i never did like those yellow cakes.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

jonnythfisherteen2 said:


> they are? i never did like those yellow cakes.


+1 ....I will miss the choclate cupcakes though...


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Agitation Free said:


> I was the grievance chairman of my union for several years.


Out of curiousity, how were you compensated?

As a side, I think everyone , when age 10, should be required by law to own and run a Lemmonaide stand. Hard work, and the reality of life would quickly become self evident, as would an understanding of government intervention. Then, at age 11, their employees should be forced to Unionize.

To any coal miner here, you might need the unions. As to the rest of us, most DO NOT have that type of risk, period. It might be argued that I and my co workers face extremes, but nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to the coal mines, especially with a government employer, but, we have a union! I think that is Big Union's big argument, but, how many of us face the risks invlved with a coal mine? Hell, mabey farmers, loggers, offshore anglers should form a union. You think food is expensive now? Those are about the 3 deadliest occupations. Wonder where we'd be if they had a union? Might as well! Imagine, uhh, never mind.


----------



## lotaluck (Dec 17, 2009)

I Fish said:


> Out of curiousity, how were you compensated?
> 
> As a side, I think everyone , when age 10, should be required by law to own and run a Lemmonaide stand. Hard work, and the reality of life would quickly become self evident, as would an understanding of government intervention. Then, at age 11, their employees should be forced to Unionize.
> mind.


excellent!! I totally get what you are saying.


----------



## lotaluck (Dec 17, 2009)

my trade use to be one of the deadliest ....but osha had change that a lot not sure if it is even in the top ten now....maybe some parts of it....I did see heavy machinery moving(rigging) was up there ....what I did most of my career....after final assembling mining machinery at Jeffrey manufacturer[/QUOTE said:


> My best friend is a union iron worker. Funny you say that because he said osha has taken the skill out of his trade lol. Not sure exactly what he does but he has mentioned he likes rigging. Tuff guy and darnd proud of his trade. I tried hunting his stands before and if your not a monkey its about impossible to get in them.


----------



## jonnythfisherteen2 (Mar 5, 2011)

Snakecharmer said:


> +1 ....I will miss the choclate cupcakes though...


actually, i cant stand sweets! i hate eating any type of fresh made pies, too sweet, and those squash/tuber pies also are too much, but only if they have more spice than sugar, and that is impossible for me to ask here unless i do it myself.


----------



## Steelheadphycho (Mar 12, 2012)

Bad Bub said:


> What defines "skilled" labor? Seriously.... i've never understood that title.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Skilled labor is exactly what it sounds like. I'm a machinist (tool and die maker). I can do things that most other people can't. I can not find anyone to help me who is as skilled as me. I've interviewed 25 people in the last year and none of them could help me do the things I need done. I deserve the wage I earn. The others that work for me do not. It is simple. What people can do give them value. That makes them skilled. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

I think it's amazing how fast some people are to blindly blame union workers when a story like this comes out.Seems like the popular thing to do these days.Where's that same anger towards companies with high paid non-union workers that have gone under in the last 10 years or so? 
Well,here's another story that isn't from a union link about the raises that a CEO and other company high ups got (took) while knowing what shape the company was in.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Steelheadphycho said:


> Skilled labor is exactly what it sounds like. I'm a machinist (tool and die maker). I can do things that most other people can't. I can not find anyone to help me who is as skilled as me. I've interviewed 25 people in the last year and none of them could help me do the things I need done. I deserve the wage I earn. The others that work for me do not. It is simple. What people can do give them value. That makes them skilled.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


And this is based on your opinion. Not that i'm saying your not a better machinist than me or anyone else, but that was my point earlier. There's no cut and dry way to say that this person deserves this much money because of his skill compared to the other guy. It's all judged by perspective.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

jeffmo said:


> I think it's amazing how fast some people are to blindly blame union workers when a story like this comes out.Seems like the popular thing to do these days.Where's that same anger towards companies with high paid non-union workers that have gone under in the last 10 years or so?
> Well,here's another story that isn't from a union link about the raises that a CEO and other company high ups got (took) while knowing what shape the company was in.
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582


Thinkprogress.org? Seriously? Think that might be a little bit biased?

Why would there be anger towards companies with high paid non union workers? It's a private company. It sucks, but it isn't our right to have any say if we aren't an owner, stockholder, CEO, etc.


----------



## dwmikemx (Mar 22, 2008)

The very purpose of unions is to extract "non-economic" wages and benefits. This is not sustainable in a competitive environment and unionized companies cannot compete in the long run and eventually go into bankruptcy....That is why unions are migrating to the government sector......no matter how excessive the wages and benefits, the government can always tax, borrow or print money to sustain the un-sustainable unionized wages. To put it bluntly, the consumer will only pay so much for a Twinkie. I think even those untrained in economics might understand that.


----------



## Nikster (Mar 14, 2007)

No problem!

I ran out & bought 100 twinkies & 200 cup cakes.

With all the preservitives they put in them they'll be fresh as can be when I open them in 10 years.

Nik,


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Back on topic...

Ken Hall, the Teamsters secretary-treasurer, said his union didn't doubt Hostess' claims after seeing its books.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/hostess-liquidation-teamsters-bakers-union_n_2145851.html

_"I think it's obvious there was no bluff," said Hall. "Our financial advisers had looked at their books, they had total access. We pushed them in negotiations to where we thought it was the absolute limit, that we would get the most for our members and [still] have a pathway back to prosperity for the company. The bakers' union disagreed with that."_

So you have unions at odds with each other.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

You didn't have to Bill. I'll re-open it if you like.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

I Fish said:


> Out of curiousity, how were you compensated?
> 
> As a side, I think everyone , when age 10, should be required by law to own and run a Lemmonaide stand. Hard work, and the reality of life would quickly become self evident, as would an understanding of government intervention. Then, at age 11, their employees should be forced to Unionize.
> 
> To any coal miner here, you might need the unions. As to the rest of us, most DO NOT have that type of risk, period. It might be argued that I and my co workers face extremes, but nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to the coal mines, especially with a government employer, but, we have a union! I think that is Big Union's big argument, but, how many of us face the risks invlved with a coal mine? Hell, mabey farmers, loggers, offshore anglers should form a union. You think food is expensive now? Those are about the 3 deadliest occupations. Wonder where we'd be if they had a union? Might as well! Imagine, uhh, never mind.


38 cents a mile. Had to keep a log. I used my own car and still paid my full share of dues.


----------



## Steelheadphycho (Mar 12, 2012)

KaGee said:


> You didn't have to Bill. I'll re-open it if you like.


Ha!
That's awesome!




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

KaGee said:


> Back on topic...
> 
> Ken Hall, the Teamsters secretary-treasurer, said his union didn't doubt Hostess' claims after seeing its books.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/hostess-liquidation-teamsters-bakers-union_n_2145851.html
> ...


Now were cooking with peanut oil. This is yet another major reason. The teamsters have taken 2 paycut over the past five years to the tune of 150 a week. That is 600 a month. That is rent for some people.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Star1pup (Aug 3, 2004)

But what aboput the states that just leagalized grass? How can those guys get high without Twinkies?


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Snoop Dogg say he gonna miss the HO HOs...


----------



## nschap (Jan 6, 2008)

everyone is always so quick to assume and to blame.the unions overpriced themselves,the company mismanaged the business.did anyone notice the health kick this country is on?people just don't eat that stuff anymore.they obviously can't sell enough bread to make up for the loss in the junk food dept.by the way I AM A UNION PIPEFITTER and proud of it.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

nschap said:


> everyone is always so quick to assume and to blame.the unions overpriced themselves,the company mismanaged the business.did anyone notice the health kick this country is on?people just don't eat that stuff anymore.they obviously can't sell enough bread to make up for the loss in the junk food dept.by the way I AM A UNION PIPEFITTER and proud of it.


It is really not that either those able routes are running 7-10k a week. That is a lot of cake. They mismanaged their money greatly. Like a said in a previous post they lost millions on the natures pride and smart breads. They also lost millions when they purchased dolly Madison just to shut them down. I am out here every day it has nothing to do with sales, they were in way to deep. Also lose knows how much they spent to get in the Talladega nights movie

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

KaGee said:


> _"I think it's obvious there was no bluff," said Hall. "Our financial advisers had looked at their books, they had total access. We pushed them in negotiations to where we thought it was the absolute limit, that we would get the most for our members and [still] have a pathway back to prosperity for the company. The bakers' union disagreed with that."_
> So you have unions at odds with each other.


I thought for sure we would be reading about some Teamsters beating the crap out of some Bakers over this.


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

Unions, you asked for it, you got it. 

Actually 51% of US asked for it, this is called "moving forward"?


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

dwmikemx said:


> The very purpose of unions is to extract "non-economic" wages and benefits. This is not sustainable in a competitive environment and unionized companies cannot compete in the long run and eventually go into bankruptcy....That is why unions are migrating to the government sector......no matter how excessive the wages and benefits, the government can always tax, borrow or print money to sustain the un-sustainable unionized wages. To put it bluntly, the consumer will only pay so much for a Twinkie. I think even those untrained in economics might understand that.


Really??? If you truly believe that, you have a lot of research to do....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> Really??? If you truly believe that, you have a lot of research to do....
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Just curious Bad Bub - have you ever had a career-track job that was non-union to really see first hand both sides? I'm not talking about a first workplace experience job like McD's or WalMart or whatever, but a career job like IT / non-union mfg, etc...


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

bad luck said:


> Unions, you asked for it, you got it.
> 
> Actually 51% of US asked for it, this is called "moving forward"?


Better to move forward than backward


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

Agitation Free said:


> Not sure where you got your info from but I don't know of any government employee that hasn't taken a pay cut or is paying more for health care or isn't forced into taking fulough days. Taxes are going up because of operating expenses. Not wages and fringes.


Ummm....... wages and fringes are part of total operating expenses.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> Just curious Bad Bub - have you ever had a career-track job that was non-union to really see first hand both sides? I'm not talking about a first workplace experience job like McD's or WalMart or whatever, but a career job like IT / non-union mfg, etc...


Actually. My wife is a co owner of a very successful industrial Janitorial business. So I do see both sides of it on a daily bases. Do her and I agree on every situation either one of us encounter? Absolutely not. Is that business successful because her and her dad have pocketed every dime they could. No! They run a very fair business. Employees are paid pretty well for not doing a "skilled" task. They take care of their employees, and it doesn't go unnoticed by the workers.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Slatebar (Apr 9, 2011)

Last week Ohio 's unions sopke and we made a differance. My first "Blue Ticket" in my 68 years , and I will never go back.. Kind of payback for SB-5 and the Wisconsin feiasco.. I think there will be some good things happen in labor in next for years. Looks like the walMart employees are also finally getting fed up .. 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wal-mart-workers-black-friday-110048819.html


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

Mushijobah said:


> Thinkprogress.org? Seriously? Think that might be a little bit biased?
> 
> Why would there be anger towards companies with high paid non union workers? It's a private company. It sucks, but it isn't our right to have any say if we aren't an owner, stockholder, CEO, etc.


Maybe but, if the article is factual then complaining about the source makes no sense at all.

Why would there be anger towards companies with high paid non-union workers? Well,why is there anger towards high paid union workers? lemme see,maybe because the products they put out can be just as high for the comsumer as those made by unions workers.So it seems that high prices can result from both.Along with many other reasons.
And,If it isn't our right,why the complaints about unions/workers? Still a private company isn't it?
Just saying that it sure appears to be a double standard.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

robertj298 said:


> Better to move forward than backward


Twinkie shortage now, kool aid shortage next...


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Unions can make or break a place of work. Look at AK steel in mansfield. Their union was so strong that they were able to get whatever they wanted. The steelmill payed thru the nose. Then after shift on night the company brought in security, escorted everyone off the property and everybody was locked out.

This is not typical by any means but it did happen and it caused havoc for the workers, families, and town overall.

Unions were supposed to protect the workers but with all the OSHA and gov't oversight that role has played out. Now it seems that unions are like sports agents and are making sure that workers get a piece of the pie. They watch out for the corporate greed and such.....

A

My wife says I have a fishing habbit....


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Mr. A said:


> Unions can make or break a place of work. Look at AK steel in mansfield. Their union was so strong that they were able to get whatever they wanted. The steelmill payed thru the nose. Then after shift on night the company brought in security, escorted everyone off the property and everybody was locked out.
> 
> This is not typical by any means but it did happen and it caused havoc for the workers, families, and town overall.
> 
> ...


I knew the steel mills were going to get brought up. The #1 reason that most of the steel mills have shut down is due to the lack of demand for steel. Not saying some of the unions weren't out of line, or some of the management weren't out of line, but bottom line, the world does not use steel like we did in the 30's- 80's. Steel mills refused to adapt to a changing world with the advancements in plastics, aluminum, titanium, etc.... both parties (union and non union) spent their money arguing that steel was still a superior material instead of looking at ways to convert some of their production to incorporate the newer materials. A car is a fine example. In 1970, a car was made primarily of steel. New cars now have maybe 50% steel content. Also, back then, the country was on a buidling spree of skyscrapers, bridges, highways, revamping of rail systems, ocean going cargo ships, box cars, etc... all of which utilized large quantities of steel. Steel ran out of time. Technology passed it up, and the mills failed to adapt. No union can protect anyone from that, and no corporation can survive that. And the dumping of steel from china didn't help matters. Eventually, another advance will come, and aluminum and titanium manufacturers will either have to adapt, or go the way of the dinosaur, just like steel. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

You guys are way off track here. The real tragedy is the loss of our god-given right to corn syrup, whey solids, hydrogenated vegetable oil, BHA & BHT.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

streamstalker said:


> You guys are way off track here. The real tragedy is the loss of our god-given right to corn syrup, whey solids, hydrogenated vegetable oil, BHA & BHT.
> Twinkies are extinct. Zombieland is here! - YouTube


THAT is an excellent movie! Snowballs?! SNOWBALLS!? I HATE SNOWBALLS!


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Wow, you guys need to do a search on FeeBay for the word "Twinkie", over 16000 hits and all are selling boxes for crazy prices, which bums me out since i was out delivering all morning at a bunch of stores and saw Twinkies and cupcakes still left on the shelves.. I knew I should have bought some, LOL

For all you addicts out there, just wait a few months I gaurantee someone will buy the top Hostess brands and start back up ( without the bread) and Im sure its already in motion....many companies wanted to buy them over the last few years but didnt want the unions or the bread. 

Salmonid


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Boils down to this: economy does good, CEOs decide "Give ourselves, the stockholders and labor all raises." Economy does bad, CEOs decide "Give ourselves 2X raises, stockholders profits decline, labor will just have to take it on the chin, AGAIN." Base human nature: "Even though without labor WE don`t have a job, WE have "golden cargo parachutes" LOADED with bonuses and perks and stock options and so on and so forth; WE therefore simply CAN NOT take salary cuts under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if it means going out of business" Since 2009 CEO salaries and "perks" are UP an average of close to 400% as reported by the Wall Street Journal this summer. 4X as much money in 4 yrs...is this because CEOs are suddenly WORTH 4X as much, 4X as "valuable"? Do they now do 4X as much work, or work 4X as many hrs? Pardon me if honestly believe the answer is MUCH simpler...it`s called BASE HUMAN NATURE: "ALL (or ALMOST ALL) for ME, NONE (or VERY LITTLE) for you...because you actually LABOR to make ME money". Unsustainable attitude.


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Boils down to this: economy does good, CEOs decide "Give ourselves, the stockholders and labor all raises." Economy does bad, CEOs decide "Give ourselves 2X raises, stockholders profits decline, labor will just have to take it on the chin, AGAIN." Base human nature: "Even though without labor WE don`t have a job, WE have "golden cargo parachutes" LOADED with bonuses and perks and stock options and so on and so forth; WE therefore simply CAN NOT take salary cuts under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if it means going out of business" Since 2009 CEO salaries and "perks" are UP an average of close to 400% as reported by the Wall Street Journal this summer. 4X as much money in 4 yrs...is this because CEOs are suddenly WORTH 4X as much, 4X as "valuable"? Do they now do 4X as much work, or work 4X as many hrs? Pardon me if honestly believe the answer is MUCH simpler...it`s called BASE HUMAN NATURE: "ALL (or ALMOST ALL) for ME, NONE (or VERY LITTLE) for you...because you actually LABOR to make ME money". Unsustainable attitude.


It also boils down to CEO "the more I can cut employees wages the bigger bonus I get".


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Boils down to this: economy does good, CEOs decide "Give ourselves, the stockholders and labor all raises." Economy does bad, CEOs decide "Give ourselves 2X raises, stockholders profits decline, labor will just have to take it on the chin, AGAIN." Base human nature: "Even though without labor WE don`t have a job, WE have "golden cargo parachutes" LOADED with bonuses and perks and stock options and so on and so forth; WE therefore simply CAN NOT take salary cuts under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, even if it means going out of business" Since 2009 CEO salaries and "perks" are UP an average of close to 400% as reported by the Wall Street Journal this summer. 4X as much money in 4 yrs...is this because CEOs are suddenly WORTH 4X as much, 4X as "valuable"? Do they now do 4X as much work, or work 4X as many hrs? Pardon me if honestly believe the answer is MUCH simpler...it`s called BASE HUMAN NATURE: "ALL (or ALMOST ALL) for ME, NONE (or VERY LITTLE) for you...because you actually LABOR to make ME money". Unsustainable attitude.


You have no idea, at all, what you are talking about. It is this backward mindset that keeps that wedge driven firmly between workers and employers, just the way certain politicians and their respective party prefers it. 
You have absolutely no idea how many people risk so much of their wealth and sacrifice so much of their time just to try to build good, honest businesses to provide for their and their employees families. You know nothing about human nature.
I have seen a lot of good and constructive debate on this thread from all sides, and some really mislead trash from all sides as well. This mindset above falls in the latter, along with the all union workers suck mindset.
Hats off to the Mods for allowing this issue to be debated on this thread as long as you have and I hope it is able to continue.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

CEOs get to those positions because they have given a huge portion of their lives to business. They are constantly on business calls, working from home, making business connections, designing business plans, have business dinners, see kids very little, etc etc. To get to that level, you give up life for money. I really doubt that very many 9-5ers would give up that much free time to dedicate to a business. SO, they sacrifice money for time. It's a wash if you ask me. I've turned down some very lucrative positions because I was not willing to travel and miss my daughter growing up. Do I regret it? No. Am I jealous of those that make fortunes? No. I understand that I work for The Man, and I make what he offers, and I get off (usually) at a decent time, while he has the burden on his shoulders of making it all work. We're all guaranteed to be able to pursue happiness, but we're not guaranteed to attain it. You gotta work for it, and from what I've seen in the past few months,...never mind. It isn't worth it any more. The twinkies are gone for now (thanks for the glimmer of hope Mark.)


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Bassbme said:


> Ummm....... wages and fringes are part of total operating expenses.


Read the entire post! You missed the point.


----------



## jhetricky7 (Mar 10, 2012)

Wow! This is a lot of posts about Twinkies. No worries twinkies will be made again by someone, they will be around forever. I say long live Little Debbie!


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

jhetricky7 said:


> Wow! This is a lot of posts about Twinkies. No worries twinkies will be made again by someone, they will be around forever. I say long live Little Debbie!


Raisin cream pies. Yum. I really need to get some snacks in this house...


----------



## bobk (Apr 30, 2004)

jhetricky7 said:


> Wow! This is a lot of posts about Twinkies. No worries twinkies will be made again by someone, they will be around forever. I say long live Little Debbie!


Very few posts about Twinkies really. Never thought it would turn into all this crap.


----------



## ezbite (May 25, 2006)

I'm heading to walmart right after work and if they got 12 boxes on the shelf, I'm buying all 12. They won't go bad, I'll just store them in the basement beside my S.H.T.F. Stores. Who knows, in 20 years I might get $50 a box 

WELL.... just got back from walmart, no twinkies??

but never fear, mexico to the rescue.lol.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...can-company-bimbo-may-be-eyeing-twinkies?lite


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Pardon me if I obviously "don`t understand' the idea. More than a couple CEOs put me in mind of the "captain" of that Italian cruise ship who overrode the GPS navigation system to show off and ended up killing 30+ PAYING passengers and THEN "accidently " fell into the very 1st life boat to leave the ship ! I`m grateful there were VERY FEW like that in the military; the VAST majority willingly LEAD from UP FRONT; they would expose themselves to the same enemy fire as you. If you went hungry, THEY went hungry. THEY rode "point" MOST of the time while the enlisted rotated. I would FOLLOW many of them to the gates of where the smoke gathers thickest. Your average CEO I wouldn`t follow to a malfunctioning ATM spitting out $20 bills, cause they`d claim it was ALL for THEM anyway. They MUST teach that crap in business school now "ALL for ME, NONE for you..." Or "GREED is GOOD (for ME )"


----------



## backlashed (Mar 19, 2011)

Agitation Free said:


> Business owners have been telling us that Obama Care is going to ruin them. This is just a start.


The two are not even remotely related. Those strikers were UFCW, I'd be amazed if they didn't already have health insurance.

Hostess didn't bother to try to line up replacement workers for jobs that are semiskilled or unskilled. I've worked in food manufacturing, it ain't that tough.

It was a poorly managed operation and management threw in the towel.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Which sign of the apocalypse is the disappearance of the Twinkie? Number 3 if I remember rightly.....only 4 more to go.... 

Yep, just went and checked...the third sign of the apocalypse is famine...we gonna starve to death without our Twinkies and Ding Dongs.

(Please, I'm not poking fun at anyone's religious belief--just the amount of fuss that's being waged over snack foods that most of us haven't eaten in a decade or more.)


----------



## backlashed (Mar 19, 2011)

Salmonid said:


> .....I gaurantee someone will buy the top Hostess brands and start back up ....many companies wanted to buy them over the last few years but didnt want the unions or the bread.
> 
> Salmonid


You're right, except they could have bought the brands without the union contracts. Hostess could also have licensed the brands and had other bakers market and sell their products under different labels. Those options are still probably out there.

Denali Flavors is just one example of companies that already do that. Jim Koch, founder of Sam Adams Brewery used co-packers to produce his first beers. Why didn't Hostess try the same route?


----------



## backlashed (Mar 19, 2011)

PapawSmith said:


> You need to be as careful reading a story on a Union organizations website that "alleges" wrongdoing by corporate management as you do when reading a WalMart corporate newsletter that criticizes the rank and file workers.


You do have to dig a little deeper PaPaw. The Teamsters were reporting off of a Dow Jones article published earlier this year. Here is a snippet from the DJ article. 

"The executives--Gary Wandschneider, John Stewart, David Loeser and Richard Seban--had seen their salaries increase by 75% to 80% last July, at a time when the baking company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to creditors...."


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

A handful of CEOs (5)with over-inflated incomes of $600,000 (we'll say that is twice what they are worth) will cost a company annually $1.5 million. Yes, this cost needs to be passed on to the consumer, but read the following paragraph.

If a collective unit of 18,500 employees are over-paid based on current market salary analysis by just $4.00 per hour, it would cost the company $156.92 million annually. Even if they were making just $1.00 more over their non-union counterparts, that equates out to $38.48 million, which the public needs to either pay the price increase or not buy - which will decrease demand, decrease production, decrease jobs, and so on...

That's the difference between CEO's "stealing their own salaries" and the union members "strongarming the company with the threat of strikes."

Neither is right, neither is wrong - they both have the right to do so, but as you can clearly see, it is very smart to pay your CEOs that can keep costs down, because by paying them more, you can save a lot of money.

Not saying this has anything to do with Hostess, but it's a good explanation of CEO's salaries vs Employee salaries in a real-world scenario.


----------



## ironman172 (Apr 12, 2009)

OH well..... there goes my chance to try the deep fried twinkie ....doesn't sound too healthy anyway....


----------



## BigDaddy300 (Nov 1, 2004)

ironman172 said:


> OH well..... there goes my chance to try the deep fried twinkie ....doesn't sound too healthy anyway....


They weren't that good anyways. Never cared much for twinkies but I am gonna miss ho hos though.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

The MATH on salaries is correct, but there are a few more points to ponder: "GEE as a CEO how many laborers have to be let go to finance MY doubling MY OWN pay? HMMM..." and how about the most BASIC 1: "GEE, we`re in trouble, we the CEOs will bravely load up the lifeboats with as much LOOT as humanly possible and then row to a safe distance. The rest of you just act like everything`s "normal" so we don`t scare the stock holders." Gutless wonders...they MUST teach that crap at "Business" school now too. The "captain" now adays has about ZERO responsibiluity to ANYONE except to give himself and his more submissive boot lickers larger bonuses from his likely well equipted personal lifeboat while enjoying the ship sinking...makes me wanna puke. Uncaring, GUTLESS wonders...


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Lowell H Turner said:


> The MATH on salaries is correct, but there are a few more points to ponder: "GEE as a CEO how many laborers have to be let go to finance MY doubling MY OWN pay? HMMM..." and how about the most BASIC 1: "GEE, we`re in trouble, we the CEOs will bravely load up the lifeboats with as much LOOT as humanly possible and then row to a safe distance. The rest of you just act like everything`s "normal" so we don`t scare the stock holders." Gutless wonders...they MUST teach that crap at "Business" school now too. The "captain" now adays has about ZERO responsibiluity to ANYONE except to give himself and his more submissive boot lickers larger bonuses from his likely well equipted personal lifeboat while enjoying the ship sinking...makes me wanna puke. Uncaring, GUTLESS wonders...


Gosh Lowell tell us how you really feel.


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

It seems like a lot of passion around this topic, but not many real facts.
Fact 1: Hostess (then known as Interstate Brands Corp) originally filed bankruptcy in 2004 because of the exact same issues they faced today.
Fact 2: When restructuring, Hostess gained little in the way of concessions when renegotiating contracts. Ultimately they cut routes in half, but drivers gave up little in pay or benefits.
Fact 3: The CEO was hired as a restructuring expert at a salary of $100,000/month. According several articles I read (see Link), in April when it was pointed out that officers salaries were high for a company struggling to stay afloat, CEO Greg Rayburn cut all officers salaries to $1 per year until they came out of bankruptcy. This does not sound like a a rat jumping ship with a golden umbrella, it sounds like an executive determined to do what ever it took to bring Hostess out of bankruptcy.
Fact 4: None of the above mattered, the business model changed for the snack cake industry years ago and Hostess did not adapt. All other snack cakes are either warehouse distribution or independant distributors. Failure to adapt to changing business years ago ultimately led to the end of Hostess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Your facts are off. The drivers have a lot ur in pay and benefits. I know these are my friends I see every day. I can give you phone numbers. It was close to 150 a week. Wherever you got that fact from is dead wrong

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

Further more as I stated in earlier posts they wasted so much one on there products line in bread. There cake routes run ,8000 I know this business I am in it every day. Been around it my whole life. Some of what is out there is flat wrong. He you want real information calk the teamsters they will tell you

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

SConner said:


> It seems like a lot of passion around this topic, but not many real facts.
> Fact 1: Hostess (then known as Interstate Brands Corp) originally filed bankruptcy in 2004 because of the exact same issues they faced today.
> Fact 2: When restructuring, Hostess gained little in the way of concessions when renegotiating contracts. Ultimately they cut routes in half, but drivers gave up little in pay or benefits.
> Fact 3: The CEO was hired as a restructuring expert at a salary of $100,000/month. According several articles I read (see Link), in April when it was pointed out that officers salaries were high for a company struggling to stay afloat, CEO Greg Rayburn cut all officers salaries to $1 per year until they came out of bankruptcy. This does not sound like a a rat jumping ship with a golden umbrella, it sounds like an executive determined to do what ever it took to bring Hostess out of bankruptcy.
> ...


Yep the CEO did cut salaries but only after creditors noticed what was going on. I guess he didn't realize how poorly they were doing right before filing chapter 11 when all the big raises were handed out lol


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

backlashed said:


> The two are not even remotely related. Those strikers were UFCW, I'd be amazed if they didn't already have health insurance.
> 
> Hostess didn't bother to try to line up replacement workers for jobs that are semiskilled or unskilled. I've worked in food manufacturing, it ain't that tough.
> 
> It was a poorly managed operation and management threw in the towel.


I'm sure they had health insurance. Now 18000+ don't. How will Obama Care help them?


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

nicklesman said:


> Your facts are off. The drivers have a lot ur in pay and benefits. I know these are my friends I see every day. I can give you phone numbers. It was close to 150 a week. Wherever you got that fact from is dead wrong
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Let me restate. Not enough concessions to make a difference with a bad business model. I believe Hostess charged retailers about $1 a snack cake. With escalation of flour prices, fuel price, etc, it just did not leave enough margin to pay out what they were paying out to drivers. It is not a knock on the drivers, just pointing out what is now clear.... They could not sustain this business model and labor is the #1 expense.


----------



## backlashed (Mar 19, 2011)

SConner said:


> According several articles I read (see Link), in April when it was pointed out that officers salaries were high for a company struggling to stay afloat, CEO Greg Rayburn cut all officers salaries to $1 per year until they came out of bankruptcy.


According to the Dow Jones Bankruptcy Report, they only reduced their salary to $1 in April of this year AFTER their major creditors complained, and their salary would go back up January 1, 2013.

Even with your information, they waited until somebody ratted them out before making the change.

You pay the business first and yourself last. Unless you are out just for yourself.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Im in the business with Nichols and he is right, most drivers 4 years ago lost about $150 a week in pay cuts and they wanted them to take another big cut but they ( hostess) drivers are already some of the lowest paid guys out in the distribution field. Sconner, you said they didnt adapt by using the distributer model, well, Entenmans, Bimbo, Sara Lee, Little Debbies for Example also do it the exact same way. ( as does Klostermans and Nickles I believe) so Im not sure where you were going with that, please elaborate if possible. I was an independant distributer for 5.5 years then got bumped out of work in May and just got into another startup route last week where Im also still an Independant contractor, ZERO benefits, I pay for truck, Gas, Insurance, no holidays, no vacation and when I was let go, no unemployment. So if that is the newest business model, how come only 4-5 of the companies work that way? ( Ole, Mission, Brownberry, Pepperidge Farm for example) 

Salmonid


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

SConner said:


> Let me restate. Not enough concessions to make a difference with a bad business model. I believe Hostess charged retailers about $1 a snack cake. With escalation of flour prices, fuel price, etc, it just did not leave enough margin to pay out what they were paying out to drivers. It is not a knock on the drivers, just pointing out what is now clear.... They could not sustain this business model and labor is the #1 expense.


Labor wasn't a problem until flour prices, fuel prices, etc. Started to rise by that post. So how was labor to blame???

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Agitation Free said:


> I'm sure they had health insurance. Now 18000+ don't. How will Obama Care help them?


Obama care is killing the companies that offer insurance plans. The government doesn't pay providers nearly what a private heath plan does. Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Taco (Jan 4, 2009)

Lowell H Turner said:


> The MATH on salaries is correct, but there are a few more points to ponder: "GEE as a CEO how many laborers have to be let go to finance MY doubling MY OWN pay? HMMM..." and how about the most BASIC 1: "GEE, we`re in trouble, we the CEOs will bravely load up the lifeboats with as much LOOT as humanly possible and then row to a safe distance. The rest of you just act like everything`s "normal" so we don`t scare the stock holders." Gutless wonders...they MUST teach that crap at "Business" school now too. The "captain" now adays has about ZERO responsibiluity to ANYONE except to give himself and his more submissive boot lickers larger bonuses from his likely well equipted personal lifeboat while enjoying the ship sinking...makes me wanna puke. Uncaring, GUTLESS wonders...


Wow, I just can't comprehend being this angry. Staggering really.

I prefer a different, more optimistic, less jaded and possibly more naive outlook. I'm sure all involved (employees, union heads, management, and stock holders) wanted the best solution. Businesses fail every day, this is just one more that happens to have a piece of Americana attached to it. But this failure also provides opportunity down the road. Somewhere, some down on his luck guy is going to get a job stuffing tweankies and he's probably going to be making more money than yesterday's tweankie stuffer. The managers got their golden parachutes but they are also lost their chance of running another company (probably). The unions lost the battle but continue to fight the war and they're members overall are stronger for it. And the poor out of work tweankie stuffer may be down on his luck today but hopefully decides that his next job won't be stuffing tweankies but decorating cakes. I feel for those who lost their jobs but sometimes the worst case scenario is really the best. It's no ones fault, they were just a dinosaur destined to become extinct.

Thanks everyone for an enjoyable and generally informative thread. Thanks mods for letting it go. I was skeptical but I think we're all better for reading it.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> Obama care is killing the companies that offer insurance plans. The government doesn't pay providers nearly what a private heath plan does. Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Yeah.. Like this one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...rings-obama-win-victory-raises_n_2092582.html


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Yeah.. Like this one
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...rings-obama-win-victory-raises_n_2092582.html


Sounds good. But I don't believe it had any relation to my post....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire[/QUOTE]

We've been seeing all these things much longer than since Obamacare


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Allow me to scale back my obviously biased opinion. I do not believe ALL CEOs are or as a group are monsters. And I realize under "duress" of various kinds that "self preservation' instinct becomes well, overwhelming, for just about everyone. Realize too, that when you actually manufacter a admittedly very TASTY copyrighted product (in mass, no less) that almost assuredly the DEMAND will likely continue and be met somewhere. For a product that is largely readily identified in most parts of the world, and often consumed just about as fast (dietary considerations aside), they seem to pleasently and self gratouiosly addict the consumer into regularly perhaps slightly overly indulging (or even over indulging occasionally).Whether this is due to their seductive aroma; uniform golden, slightly moist texture, each an exact twin pair of many billions of clones of pastery magic and technological marvel with a demand slightly above Scheadule II narcotics would guess China (or Singapore, Belieze, ect) may be poised to gain the strategic upper hand in the escalating "Twinky Wars". Welcome to the global economy...I guess. WILL we PAY $5 for a pair? Open a factory in MY back yard, uh; I meant down the street.


----------



## Fishaholic69 (Apr 6, 2007)

Hostess have went bankrupt alot of times. They are greedy! Shows ceo's rather ship jobs overseas instead of care about its workers. I feel sorry for anyone who works for people like this. papa johns and denny's included! Dude gave away 2 million pizza's but couldn't pay the 14 cents extra a pizza for all his people to have healthcare. sad.......


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

robertj298 said:


> Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


We've been seeing all these things much longer than since Obamacare[/QUOTE]

Nothing like the jump it created in the last 3 years.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

QUOTE=Bad Bub;1518314]Obama care is killing the companies that offer insurance plans.[/[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]QUOTE][/CODE] The government doesn't pay providers nearly what a private heath plan does. Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire[/QUOTE]

Obama care is killing the companies that offer health care. That is the point. Management can blame unions and unions can blame management but in the end, companies have been telling us that Obama care will lead to layoffs and closings. Health care cost in this country are out of control and it's a contributing factor for all businesses bottom line. I just don't think Obama care is the answer. If Obama can save G.M. and Chrysler, why didn't he save the 18000 jobs at Hostess?


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE

The topic is TWINKIES, not healthcare.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

I understand both Lowell's and sbreech's points...and both are correct!
There are plenty of Small Business owners who CARE about their business and their employees...and there are a few who only care about the money!
There are also ALOT of BIG Businesses who ONLY care about the money...and a few who actually care about their employees!

Reminds me of how Sam Walton first started Wal-Mart...Buy American, treat your emplyees like family, etc....and when Sam died....now look at them, heck, they'd do anything to make a buck! 
HOW MANY GOOD AMERICAN JOBS WERE LOST JUST BECAUSE OF WALMART...jobs because of closing local Mom&Pop stores, jobs lost to increase profit margin due to shipping manufacturing to China for poorer quality merchandise, hurting other large retailers with cheap buying power, etc.
Walmart was A BIG winner because they not only helped to facilitate a down economy, but also were set to benefit from it....they were able to create their own PERFECT business model.
Corporate America used to be intertwined with local economies etc and now they are only concerned with stock holder performance, Management pay packages, and trader expectations. Workers are again...just a piece of throw away, fixed, manufacturing cost.
Let the Unions all die out...see how fast wages change....we all still have higher overall wages than the rest of the world due to Union pay scales. If businesses didn't have to compete for labor and scale wages...things would get ugly....fast! SOME RE-SETTING of the Business/Union scale wages, do take effect because of poor Management AND Union decisions.
AND THIS IS THE CASE WITH HOSTESS, someone will buy the part of the business that they can make profitable and let the other part die like a free DOWN economy chose!


----------



## seethe303 (Dec 12, 2006)

KaGee said:


> BACK ON TOPIC PLEASE
> 
> The topic is TWINKIES, not healthcare.


For what its worth, consuming an excess of twinkies probably has a negative effect on one's health


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

sbreech said:


> A handful of CEOs (5)with over-inflated incomes of $600,000 (we'll say that is twice what they are worth) will cost a company annually $1.5 million. Yes, this cost needs to be passed on to the consumer, but read the following paragraph.
> 
> If a collective unit of 18,500 employees are over-paid based on current market salary analysis by just $4.00 per hour, it would cost the company $156.92 million annually. Even if they were making just $1.00 more over their non-union counterparts, that equates out to $38.48 million, which the public needs to either pay the price increase or not buy - which will decrease demand, decrease production, decrease jobs, and so on...
> 
> ...


Off topic but seems like the same formula the government wants to use for the rich people to pay all the taxes to support everyone else. Union leaders will never look themselves in the mirror and see they are the problem. I wonder what the vote percentage was to go on strike. I bet a lot of the 18,000 still wish they had a job.


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

imalt said:


> Off topic but seems like the same formula the government wants to use for the rich people to pay all the taxes to support everyone else. Union leaders will never look themselves in the mirror and see they are the problem. I wonder what the vote percentage was to go on strike. I bet a lot of the 18,000 still wish they had a job.


No doubt there's some, but a majority of 18,000 people is a pretty big statement......

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Bad Bub said:


> No doubt there's some, but a majority of 18,000 people is a pretty big statement......
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Hardly a majority. The 18,500 workers were represented by, I believe, 12 different unions with the Teamsters being the largest. The Bakers union was the holdout union that refused the bankruptcy court directive on required concessions that ultimately led to the closing. The Teamsters and others had come to an agreement based on the court directives and were working. I believe the Bakers members represented about 6000 or so Hostess employees.


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

Bad Bub said:


> No doubt there's some, but a majority of 18,000 people is a pretty big statement......
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


So a majority of the 18,000 is glad they are unemployed then. Seems like good logical thinking.


----------



## Taco (Jan 4, 2009)

Fishaholic69 said:


> Hostess have went bankrupt alot of times. They are greedy! Shows ceo's rather ship jobs overseas instead of care about its workers. I feel sorry for anyone who works for people like this. papa johns and denny's included! Dude gave away 2 million pizza's but couldn't pay the 14 cents extra a pizza for all his people to have healthcare. sad.......


you'e got to be kidding me, right. You're calling out a guy for not doing enough in the same sentence you criticize him for giving away 2 million free pizzas?


----------



## imalt (Apr 17, 2008)

Taco said:


> you'e got to be kidding me, right. You're calling out a guy for not doing enough in the same sentence you criticize him for giving away 2 million free pizzas?


couldn't agree more. The cost of insurance benefits for employees is the problem not the ceo's of the company. That is the problem with giving the takers never feel like it is enough.


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

To be honest, I never liked twinkees. I think the reason this thread took off the way it did is because so many people lost their jobs. That's hard news for anyone to hear because we all know the affects will impact many families and thus the number of people that really lost is much higher. Very troubling news. Wherever the blame lies, it's a shame.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

I still think it's a good idea to have a union to represent the little guy at the end of the factory line against the big CEOs with their deep pockets and army of lawyers. Unions have gone overboard in protecting bad workers and are seeing a kickback from businesses and even their own membership. The economy and increased health care costs are putting pressure on both sides which is making it tough to negotiate a deal. The pie is getting smaller and you can't split it up and give people more than they had before. 

That said, have you see the lobbies of hospitals and insurance companies these days? Somebody is making money to have extra to spruce up their buildings, build new ones, and get the naming rights to stadiums! Whose insurance premiums are paying for the Progressive Field signs?


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Judge puts Hostess liquidation on hold, orders talks

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/1...ill-put-employees-back-to-work/#ixzz2Chh5Q1Kr


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Not that is was the union's fault but I read that they had segregated trucks....Twinkies weren't allowed to ride in trucks with Ho ho's. They had to be in their own delivery truck. That makes a lot of sense to me....

Just checked e-bay... 12,600 listings for Hostess Cupcakes....Business must be booming....


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Let`s just face the REAL issue here that EVERYONE is dodging: will YOU pay $3 for a "Twinkie" made overseas, likely in a low wage non union country ? I personally will likely find the nearest TA (Twinkies Anonyomous) meeting and just ADMIT I have a "problem"...(when you eat a WHOLE box of 12 in a single setting in less time than it took to read this post , FACE FACTS- YOU`RE ADDICTED...) Wonder if they`ll serve coffee at least...


----------



## fredg53 (Sep 17, 2010)

Funny the union agreed hopefully back in biz 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Taco (Jan 4, 2009)

Ever dip a Tweankie in bourbon? I haven't but next chance I have I'm going to. That and not watching more TV are probably my two biggest regrets.


----------



## backlashed (Mar 19, 2011)

robertj298 said:


> Therefore, those of us that pay for our health care see rising premiums, higher deductibles and higher copays. Someone has to pay for all those free Dr visits. And once again it's those of us that work and pay for it. The health care they will receive on unemployment is going to be the least of their worries....


We've been seeing all these things much longer than since Obamacare[/QUOTE]

You're right, who has been paying the medical bills of all the deadbeats all these years? Failure to pay medical expenses is the biggest reason for foreclosure in our country.


----------



## bdawg (Apr 14, 2009)

KaGee said:


> Judge puts Hostess liquidation on hold, orders talks
> 
> Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/1...ill-put-employees-back-to-work/#ixzz2Chh5Q1Kr


The judge must be a closet twinkie lover!


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

bdawg said:


> The judge must be a closet twinkie lover!


Without looking first, I'd guess there's at least one discussion forum for that.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Bakers&#8217; Union has 8 Vice Presidents and 2 Million in Executive Salaries
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...esidents-and-2-million-in-executive-salaries/

The Bakers&#8217; Union (BCTGM) has 58 employees. 29 of them make more than $100,000 a year.
The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers&#8217; International Union has 8 Vice Presidents. (One is an Executive Vice-President).
These 8 Vice Presidents make anywhere from $218,989.00 to $161,789.00 for a combined total of over 2 million dollars. Additionally there&#8217;s a Secretary Treasurer who makes $244,396.00.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

KaGee said:


> Bakers Union has 8 Vice Presidents and 2 Million in Executive Salaries
> http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...esidents-and-2-million-in-executive-salaries/
> 
> The Bakers Union (BCTGM) has 58 employees. 29 of them make more than $100,000 a year.
> ...


You could say the union officials are rolling in the dough... Or making a lot of bread.....Whatever, the workers got a crummy deal....


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Some what seriously, HOW MANY TIMES has Hostess gone BANKRUPT in the past? With a product line that has the compulsionary degree of say herion addiction BUT they can LEGALLY sell their product ? Is someone actually LOOKING to "kill " the goose that baked the golden brown creme filled culinary clones of tasty irresistablities and MAKE us all pay $3 apiece to get our gratourious "fix" ? (DELETED)s !


----------



## Steelheadphycho (Mar 12, 2012)

KaGee said:


> Bakers


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

KaGee said:


> Bakers Union has 8 Vice Presidents and 2 Million in Executive Salaries
> http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...esidents-and-2-million-in-executive-salaries/
> 
> The Bakers Union (BCTGM) has 58 employees. 29 of them make more than $100,000 a year.
> ...


Talk about corruption :S . And union people wonder why non union people have negative opinions about them. The ones at the top shouldn't be able to make 6 figures for basically sitting on their asses all day while the workers pay their salaries.


----------



## Lempnerb (Apr 8, 2011)

The government should've bailed out hostess just like they bailed out the banks and auto industries 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

spikeg79 said:


> Talk about corruption :S . And union people wonder why non union people have negative opinions about them. The ones at the top shouldn't be able to make 6 figures for basically sitting on their asses all day while the workers pay their salaries.


Just like company executives? No different really. Most union heads are actually lawyers and accountants that probably started out in those unions as a basic laborer, paying their own dues. They got an education and worked their way up the ladder. You can't just be joe schmo off the street and lead a union.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

KaGee said:


> Bakers


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Why won't this site let me quote and reply on kagee's post!?!?!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

KaGee said:


> Bakers Union has 8 Vice Presidents and 2 Million in Executive Salaries
> http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...esidents-and-2-million-in-executive-salaries/
> 
> The Bakers Union (BCTGM) has 58 employees. 29 of them make more than $100,000 a year.
> ...


Bad Bub,

I just tried the quote function on Kagee's post and it works just fine.

I would have to narrow your problem down to operator error


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Anyway.... that report may have been one of the most biased and uneducated reports i've ever seen. He obviously doesn't have a clue how a union works, and that union heads aren't payed by hostess. What they make has no bearing on hostesses bankruptcy problems. There are over 100,000 dues paying members in the bakers union. The 58 employees, are stewardship and local officers all over the country....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Lundy said:


> Bad Bub,
> 
> I just tried the quote function on Kagee's post and it works just fine.
> 
> I would have to narrow your problem down to operator error


It showed up while I was typing it. But when I posted, all it said was "bakers". I also noticed someone a few posts ahead of me had the same problem. So i'd say this operator, has no error....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Bad Bub said:


> Just like company executives? No different really. Most union heads are actually lawyers and accountants that probably started out in those unions as a basic laborer, paying their own dues. They got an education and worked their way up the ladder. You can't just be joe schmo off the street and lead a union.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


In many cases, VERY different. Company executives are usually owners, or large share holders, or family members (read all as at least partial owners) that can do whatever they want with the company THEY own and should not be told what to do by an outside entitity (union). If I had a company, and the workers wanted to bring in an outside union, I'd surely tell them to walk out if they like and have help-wanted ads posted faster then they could drive out of the parking lot. Take the salary that I offer, with the benefits on the table, working the shift I offer, or find another place to work and I'll fill the position again. If I'm not offering enough, I won't be able to fill it and my company will go under. No harm, no foul for either.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Having a product line with a public demand comparable to breathable air, would have to think that a company that was a "revolving door" policy in bankruptsy court OBVIOUSLY isn`t very well run. And as far as the union taking a paycut, I would think that management would "step up" and lead by EXAMPLE and take their pay cut for the CEOs just to "show good faith"...BASE HUMAN NATURE says that will not happen. HELLO $3 "Twinkies" with "Made in China" on the label...


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

blame it all on vulture capitalist firms??

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/vulture_capitalism_not_unions_killed_twinkies/


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

*Hostess poised to liquidate after last-minute talks with union fail*



> The maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs said late Tuesday that it failed to reach an agreement with its second-biggest union. As a result, Hostess plans to continue with a hearing on Wednesday in which a bankruptcy court judge in White Plains, N.Y., will decide if the company can shutter its operations.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012...ith-union-fail/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Csk7y1M5


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

Just stopped in this thread for the first time today...who knew a thread about Twinkies would be one of the fastest growing threads on OGF in recent history. 

All hail the Twinkie! 

Happy Thanksgiving guys!


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> In many cases, VERY different. Company executives are usually owners, or large share holders, or family members (read all as at least partial owners) that can do whatever they want with the company THEY own and should not be told what to do by an outside entitity (union). If I had a company, and the workers wanted to bring in an outside union, I'd surely tell them to walk out if they like and have help-wanted ads posted faster then they could drive out of the parking lot. Take the salary that I offer, with the benefits on the table, working the shift I offer, or find another place to work and I'll fill the position again. If I'm not offering enough, I won't be able to fill it and my company will go under. No harm, no foul for either.


The comparison was that union heads sit on their butts all day and collect 6 figure salaries. No one tells them what to do. Workers could leave at any minute, and a company can reject a contract anytime they negotiate. Nobody forces a company to allow unions to form. Walmart is a fine example of that. But obviously, the workers that currently work for many companies, while within a union, are too valuable to replace as a whole. Or there wouldn't be a union in existence today, and we'd all make minimum wage at best..... not all companies despise the unions. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

K gonefishin said:


> Just stopped in this thread for the first time today...who knew a thread about Twinkies would be one of the fastest growing threads on OGF in recent history.
> 
> All hail the Twinkie!
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving guys!


What turtle??? 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Bad Bub said:


> . But obviously, the workers that currently work for many companies, while within a union, are too valuable to replace as a whole. Or there wouldn't be a union in existence today, and we'd all make minimum wage at best..... not all companies despise the unions.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Does the work contract mean anything? Companies can not displace their unions workers and hire all non union workers because there is a contract that says they can't. Until there is a breech of contract the contract is binding and even then there are clearly spelled out provisions that have been negotiated in previous contracts that most likely preclude such action. The companies don't do this by choice because they really like them a lot

I am sure that you are right, there probably are a couple of companies that value the fact that their employees are union but I don't think it is very many or the unions roles would not be decreasing as they are every year.

I do know some contractors that have to have union employees because without them they wouldn't be permitted to bid on a lot of work (federal, state and local government funded projects) that requires only union labor. A lot of these bid contracts over the years have changed to only requiring that the contractor pay prevailing wage to his employees but they don't actually have to be union members.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Lundy said:


> Does the work contract mean anything? Companies can not displace their unions workers and hire all non union workers because there is a contract that says they can't. Until there is a breech of contract the contract is binding and even then there are clearly spelled out provisions that have been negotiated in previous contracts that most likely preclude such action. The companies don't do this by choice because they really like them a lot
> 
> I am sure that you are right, there probably are a couple of companies that value the fact that their employees are union but I don't think it is very many or the unions roles would not be decreasing as they are every year.
> 
> I do know some contractors that have to have union employees because without them they wouldn't be permitted to bid on a lot of work (federal, state and local government funded projects) that requires only union labor. A lot of these bid contracts over the years have changed to only requiring that the contractor pay prevailing wage to his employees but they don't actually have to be union members.


There ARE companies that bring unions in. For one, here in Central Ohio, was National Rx Services - a mail order company now known as Express Scripts. They brought the union in to pick up LARGE contracts for mail order prescriptions with UAW, FOP, OPERS (due to their board members being union members), and other unions. Union shops supporting union shops. Heck, when we went on strike (ick!), we had a hard time with a lot of the delivery companies bringing prescription drugs for us to fill for sick people. That's right, the union line was more important than sick and old people getting meds.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Having a product line with a public demand comparable to breathable air, would have to think that a company that was a "revolving door" policy in bankruptsy court OBVIOUSLY isn`t very well run. And as far as the union taking a paycut, I would think that management would "step up" and lead by EXAMPLE and take their pay cut for the CEOs just to "show good faith"...BASE HUMAN NATURE says that will not happen. HELLO $3 "Twinkies" with "Made in China" on the label...


Yea especially when they deliver ho ho's in one truck and twinkies in another truck to the same grocery store . How stupid....


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Snakecharmer said:


> Yea especially when they deliver ho ho's in one truck and twinkies in another truck to the same grocery store . How stupid....


I believe its Wonder bread products in one truck and snack products in a separate truck. But your point is spot on. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

At one point they had Hostess, Dolly Madison and Bread on three separate trucks. During first round of restructuring they tried putting all 3 on same truck and did not work out so well. They then split snack cake from bread. A little later they took Dolly Madison to warehouse only, but it was out of the market place for several months and at the same time they duplicated some of the better Dolly Madison items in the Hostess assortment (Zingers primarily). By the time Dolly got back to market the brand was mostly dead.


----------



## dwmikemx (Mar 22, 2008)

The very purpose of unions is to extract "non-economic" wages and benefits. This is not sustainable in a competitive environment and unionized companies cannot compete in the long run and eventually go into bankruptcy....That is why unions are migrating to the government sector......no matter how excessive the wages and benefits, the government can always tax, borrow or print money to sustain the un-sustainable unionized wages. To put it bluntly, the consumer will only pay so much for a Twinkie. I think even those untrained in economics might understand that.


----------



## nicklesman (Jun 29, 2006)

KaGee said:


> I believe its Wonder bread products in one truck and snack products in a separate truck. But your point is spot on.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Your spot on but some hostess drivers do carry bread for the smaller stores to avoid your point. As far as the big stores there just is not enough time to run both products off the same truck. You just could not get as many stops done during the day. It seems like it is dumb but it is necessary to run the desired money.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

Lundy said:


> Does the work contract mean anything? Companies can not displace their unions workers and hire all non union workers because there is a contract that says they can't. Until there is a breech of contract the contract is binding and even then there are clearly spelled out provisions that have been negotiated in previous contracts that most likely preclude such action. The companies don't do this by choice because they really like them a lot


Most union/company contracts are only a 3 year term. If a company really wanted rid of a union (that they allowed to form in the first place) all they have to do is let the contract expire and hire whoever they desire. Once a contract expires, there is no binding agreement.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

sbreech said:


> There ARE companies that bring unions in. For one, here in Central Ohio, was National Rx Services - a mail order company now known as Express Scripts. They brought the union in to pick up LARGE contracts for mail order prescriptions with UAW, FOP, OPERS (due to their board members being union members), and other unions. Union shops supporting union shops. Heck, when we went on strike (ick!), we had a hard time with a lot of the delivery companies bringing prescription drugs for us to fill for sick people. That's right, the union line was more important than sick and old people getting meds.


Your right. Our contract has a stipulation that any outside work must have atleast one bid "considered" from a unionized company. Most times, the union bid is the one that is awarded. Maybe just to "keep the peace", but there is no obligation to the company to award it to any particular company. When it comes to unions like the I.B.E.W. and the iron workers, for instance, they don't mess around. They come in, do their jobs and are very professional about it. The union heads in those organizations are very proud of the work their members do. And they don't hesitate to get rid of the "problem children" that could cost them work down the road. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## bad luck (Apr 9, 2009)

I've enjoyed doing my homework prior to buying things to make sure I'm buying non union products. Oddly enough, I've found quality to be same or better and price definitely better!


I still haven't figured out why people flying F 18's or driving tanks can still do their jobs VERY effectively without being union....all the union heads are always screaming about low quality output from non union labor.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Basically the military survives without unions today because #1 the overall QUALITY of the completely volunteer armed forces who serve in them. #2 the idea that even if you personally dislike someone that person is STILL on "our side" and like you or not you are DEPENDING ON THEM to DO their job regardless of their opinions. #3 You can quit a job, or union anytime; if it`s just a REALLY bad day you may even have company. When it is YOUR OWN LIFE, and family and their ultimate safety that`s at stake you better bet your average "paper shuffler" and supply type just grew and bared some nasty SHARP and likely salmonila infected dental work straight out of "Jurrasic Park' and forgive them if they proceed to vigorously remove BIG ragged hunks of the enemy`s posterior with the appropriate lack of table manners and then come back for MORE...


----------



## Bad Bub (Jan 17, 2006)

bad luck said:


> I've enjoyed doing my homework prior to buying things to make sure I'm buying non union products. Oddly enough, I've found quality to be same or better and price definitely better!
> 
> 
> I still haven't figured out why people flying F 18's or driving tanks can still do their jobs VERY effectively without being union....all the union heads are always screaming about low quality output from non union labor.


You won't find a better F-18 flying around that wasn't built by a union. I'll guarantee that. Same with basically every other piece of armored, mobile or airborne equipment the u.s. military uses....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## crappiedude (Mar 12, 2006)

I worked for 2 union companies in the past. Both of these companies are out of business now. I decided unions weren't for me. I haven't miss a day of work since.


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

bad luck said:


> I've enjoyed doing my homework prior to buying things to make sure I'm buying non union products. Oddly enough, I've found quality to be same or better and price definitely better!


Why waste the time   As long as it's Made in America should be good enough. Who cares if it's Union or Non Union made. 

Back on topic: I seen Little Debbie Twinkies and Cupcakes were sold out at 2 of the grocery stores I went to yesterday  .


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

Talk about screwed up  :S Liquidating Twinkies maker seeks approval to pay up to $1.8M in executive bonuses


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

The soon to bloosom "golden CARGO parachutes" are just the "new" old version of "GREED is GOOD (for us") ie BASE HUMAN NATURE...ALL (or as much as we can `legally and unethically get) for US and NONE (or as very little as you can FORCE us to part with) for you at all. As far as the suppliers of most military equipment, YES it`s generally (but not always) overpriced, and YES it`s sometimes "gold plated" ie overly capable. However, if you remember the beginning of Desert Shield/ Storm, there were worries about the M-1 "Abrams" tank (sand filter problems, and insanely high fuel consumption ), the MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) with FAR too few reload cages and GPS recievers far too scarce, the AH-64 "Apatche" attack helicopter main and tail rotor blade erosion due to sand and some sort of maintainance test equiptment shortage...the list went on. Good old fashion duct tape fixed over 1/2 of the problems (seriously !) the vast majority were largely corrected by the deadline and the rest is history...almost EVERYTHING worked to 120% and then some and actually allowed the vast majority of even the enemy to survive. Money well spent...now these same improved systems are even MORE lethal than before.


----------



## Ducern (Apr 14, 2004)

The sky is falling, the sky is falling chicken little!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

Supposedly Little Debbie is buying Twinkies, hope they don't drop my "Nutty Bars" to make Twinkies but I hope they buy the rights to make all the Hostess snacks.
Better hurry and get your stale Twinkies on ebay.........


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

shroomhunter said:


> Supposedly Little Debbie is buying Twinkies, hope they don't drop my "Nutty Bars" to make Twinkies but I hope they buy the rights to make all the Hostess snacks.
> Better hurry and get your stale Twinkies on ebay.........


Actually MCkee/Little Debbie bakeries is the lead bidder for Drake's cakes brands.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-picks-little-debbie-maker-214937626.html;_ylt=A2KLOzGXcQpRzGUAGq3QtDMD

Two investment firms are the lead bidders for Hostess Twinkies, Cupcakes etc...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/twinkies-deal-hostess-bidder_n_2586715.html?utm_hp_ref=business


----------



## rwandover (Mar 23, 2013)

I heard they were coming back around summer time From another company. It may have been Little Debbie.


----------



## SConner (Mar 3, 2007)

rwandover said:


> I heard they were coming back around summer time From another company. It may have been Little Debbie.


The plan is for early summer, the company is NOT Little Debbie. The snack cake brands were bought by Apollo Group and Metropoulos & Co.

http://business.time.com/2013/03/21...ith-the-new-owners-the-metropoulous-brothers/


----------

