nin wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 13:34:

TangledThorns wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 13:33:
After I read the news Friday morning I went to the supermarket during my lunch break and bought nine boxes of Twinkies, six original and three chocolate filled. I'm holding on to them till they are in demand by collectors many years from now.

I'm not sure where I saw it, but there was a picture of a guy that held onto a twinky for like 40 years. Even sealed in the package, it looked nasty.

PHJF wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 12:23:

But face it they really make garbage anyway and buyers overall are much smarter today then yesteryear on what these high sugar-carb bombs do and it adds up

hahaha!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918

Prez wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 07:50:

The union could have worked for free, and I bet Hostess still would have gone bankrupt eventually.

By the same token, everyone in the boardroom could have taken a 99.9999% pay cut and it seems likely the company would still have gone bankrupt unless something was fundamentally and drastically changed. That doesn't make the cronyism and the obscene self-serving pay increases to the corporate fat cats any less despicable, or the situation of the screwed-yet-again little guy any less sad, but that's how it seems.

TangledThorns wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 13:33:
After I read the news Friday morning I went to the supermarket during my lunch break and bought nine boxes of Twinkies, six original and three chocolate filled. I'm holding on to them till they are in demand by collectors many years from now.

But face it they really make garbage anyway and buyers overall are much smarter today then yesteryear on what these high sugar-carb bombs do and it adds up

Dades wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 15:01:

MajorD wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 14:32:
This is a real shame.

I have heard & read more stories of business having to shutdown due to union strikes. So, in the middle of a recession, with unemployment at an all time high, they'll go on strike for more money and better benefits, which the companies simply can not afford as it is, because they are barely sustaining in the current state of the economy, and will eventually lead to the companies having to shutdown their operations. So what have they gained? //Shakes head….

Unions 'might' still have their place in various sectors, but definitely not all anymore. In this day and age they aren't as isolated as they once were, and have definitely become more volatile.

That's what happens with some unions but many corporations know that public apathy towards unions is at an all time high and use that to their advantage. That's not what happened to Hostess anyway, they asked the unions to take a third major concession in 5 years and many of the workers voted against it because they could not afford to take another pay cut. These guys were not auto workers without a high school education making 80k, demanding raises.

There are a lot of markets that have working conditions that practically require unions to avoid corporate abuse but thanks to global trade many companies know they can get chinese workers to do it without that concern.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

The union could have worked for free, and I bet Hostess still would have gone bankrupt eventually.

Bhruic wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 06:03:
Read this for details of the management salary increases.

PropheT wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 20:43:
They did, but the reality is that they held out for a bigger payday for the workers on a company that was going under because of labor costs. The union chose no jobs at all over the deal that was being offered them, so the idea that the union was protecting those people's jobs is kind of out the window. They were in a position to negotiate raises or concessions by the company to give back to the workers in the event of a return to profitability, but instead this is what happened.

However most haven't been a mouthpiece for the worker in some time and is no better, hell often worse, than the businesses they try to vilify.

ChandlerL wrote on Nov 18, 2012, 02:20:
The baker's union just made the decision for 18,000 people-- most of whom were not part of that union.

Unions began life as a beacon of hope for an industrializing young nation. However most haven't been a mouthpiece for the worker in some time and is no better, hell often worse, than the businesses they try to vilify.

Prez wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 15:10:
I am vehemently anti-union because of some really ugly personal history with them, but Cutter is right that the union is not the issue in this case. These people have been asked to take cut after cut - how they continue to eek out a living is beyond me.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 20:05:
I feel bad for those in the Union. They have made MAJOR concessions in the prior years, and the media isn't picking up on that. They are very anti-union. Sad. Very sad.

nin wrote on Nov 17, 2012, 20:14:

They will be back soon.

I hope you're right. Although I'm not sure which I fear more: them not returning, or someone else buying them and tweaking the recipe enough that they're not as good as they used to be.

They will be back soon.