Hostess is out of business.
I'm surprised no one commented on this yet. A pop-culture icon is dead.
Since my Dad works for Little Debbie I thought it would be in poor taste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't there an old joke about someone who's too lazy to work in a pie factory? What exactly did Hostess's union bakers do again?
Option A: 8% pay cut.
Option B: 100% pay cut.That's a tough one.
Go Galt.
The company's problems were created by the mismanagement. Corporate raiders (sorry -- venture capitalists) a.k.a. "makers" leveraged the company to death while giving themselves huge year-over-year raises. Meanwhile, the people who do all the actual work (a.k.a. the "takers"), had already absorbed pay cuts, and the notion that another would have done anything but let the company limp on for a few months -- while management further lined its pockets -- is mistaken.
But don't let any of that interrupt your smug Randi-an Schadenfreude.
P.S. You still lost the election. :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mmmm. Zombie twinkies.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really dead, as long as it can inspire things like this.
The brands will rise from the grave after the product rights are sold off anyway.
Correct. Anyone who thinks Twinkies won't exist in a year is delusional.
Not just bummed about Twinkies - they were never my favorite anyway.
But c'mon - CupCakes, Ding Dongs, and Donettes, too! Also - their Fruit Pies were awesome - takes me back to lunchbox meals.
Just haven't found a good match for many of those products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It came up in the Living under Obama's presidency thread over the weekend.
The press release in the OP here is a little biased to say the least.
Pardon me, Comrade Jeff, but the discussion started here.
Also, if Galt had been involved with the Bakers Union strike, Citizen Algrith, the news articles would have a slightly different slant.
Off with their heads!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not just bummed about Twinkies - they were never my favorite anyway.
But c'mon - CupCakes, Ding Dongs, and Donettes, too! Also - their Fruit Pies were awesome - takes me back to lunchbox meals.Just haven't found a good match for many of those products.
Little Debbie is working hard to replace these for you.
CupCakes = Chocolate CupcakesDing Dongs = Cocoa Cremes
Twinkie = Cloud Cakes
Fruit Pies = Snack Pies (in Apple, Cherry, Chocolate, and Lemon)
Was the bakers union only to blame, probably not. Was the owners only to blame, probably not (given that the teamsters were for the deal, it is hard to say that all unions would blame the owners). Still it was probably inevitable. Even if the deal was made, the company would only limp along for another year or so. Better to just get it done with and move off. Of course coming right before the holidays kind of sucks.
Not just bummed about Twinkies - they were never my favorite anyway.
But c'mon - CupCakes, Ding Dongs, and Donettes, too! Also - their Fruit Pies were awesome - takes me back to lunchbox meals.Just haven't found a good match for many of those products.
Little Debbie is working hard to replace these for you.
CupCakes = Chocolate Cupcakes
Ding Dongs = Cocoa Cremes
Twinkie = Cloud Cakes
Fruit Pies = Snack Pies (in Apple, Cherry, Chocolate, and Lemon)
We thank you for your patronage. =)
Now we just need to actually get some of those cloud cakes to my local store.
CupCakes, Ding Dongs, and Donettes, too! Also - their Fruit Pies were awesome - takes me back to lunchbox meals.
Just haven't found a good match for many of those products.
How do you feel about Drake's cakes, such as Ring Dings, Yodels and Drake's Fruit Pies? How do those compare to Hostess' Ding Dongs and fruit pies?
(As someone who keeps kosher and never tried Hostess products, I'm genuinely curious.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mismanagement ---likely ...
However, those "evil corporate raiders" kept the Co. going for the last few yeas and thus saved the jobs of those working at the Co.
I am always amazed how the class warfare crowd fails to understand the basic economic idea of:
No profit = No Business = No jobs!!!
If the option is work for less or don't work at all it is insane to choose the later. Welcome to union dominated America. We'd rather not work because the government will surely take care of us.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if Hostess would have been more profitable if their CEOs hadn't received 75%-80% raises in 2011?
Nope, must be those greedy union bakers.
Mismanagement ---likely ...
However, those "evil corporate raiders" kept the Co. going for the last few yeas and thus saved the jobs of those working at the Co.
I am always amazed how the class warfare crowd fails to understand the basic economic idea of:
No profit = No Business = No jobs!!!
If the option is work for less or don't work at all it is insane to choose the later. Welcome to union dominated America. We'd rather not work because the government will surely take care of us.
I would strongly suggest you entertain what the union workers had to say on the subject. This is not exactly "work for less" its a 50 percent pay cut over time- you are literally making less each year. Few are the people who would take this in stride.
Mismanagement ---likely ...
However, those "evil corporate raiders" kept the Co. going for the last few yeas and thus saved the jobs of those working at the Co.
I am always amazed how the class warfare crowd fails to understand the basic economic idea of:
No profit = No Business = No jobs!!!
If the option is work for less or don't work at all it is insane to choose the later. Welcome to union dominated America. We'd rather not work because the government will surely take care of us.
There are always more jobs at proffitable companies that don't exploit the workers. Hostess will go through bankrupcy, their assets will be sold off to other companies that will then want to utalize them. Many of these people will find jobs with those companies. It will take a year or so, but its better than continuously getting the shaft.
Mismanagement ---likely ...
However, those "evil corporate raiders" kept the Co. going for the last few yeas and thus saved the jobs of those working at the Co.
I am always amazed how the class warfare crowd fails to understand the basic economic idea of:
No profit = No Business = No jobs!!!
If the option is work for less or don't work at all it is insane to choose the later. Welcome to union dominated America. We'd rather not work because the government will surely take care of us.
The "class warfare crowd?"
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”― Warren Buffett
As for "failing to understand the basic economic idea" -- I don't think that is the problem. Maybe you should try something other than assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a moron?
Wait a second, Twinkies fans!
Man, and I was trying to see if a Colorado Gro-Op would buy Hostess!
You can't live on a 50% paycut.
You can't live on a 50% paycut.
Depends on the pay before hand. ;D (percentages tend to be meaningless without some reference)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:
More: Hostess from icon to bust - a timeline
Ripplewood is run by Tim Collins, 55, who's been at the center of other famed PE transactions. Known as a brilliant capitalist-philanthropist-networker, he's an eclectic character: a Democrat in an industry of Republicans; an Adirondack enthusiast dreaded by pheasant and fish; a board member at the Yale divinity and business schools; and someone who took a year at 31 to work at a refugee camp in the Sudan. Ripplewood orchestrated the $1.1 billion turnaround in 2000 of the Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, which marked the first time that foreign interests controlled a Japanese bank. (Collins made the cover of Fortune Asia for it.) The bank was renamed Shinsei, and in 2004 it had a lucrative initial public stock offering. Far less fortunately, in 2007 Ripplewood acquired Reader's Digest -- and saw its $275 million investment vanish in Reader's Digest's bankruptcy filing in 2009. (Collins reportedly had visions of merging Reader's Digest with the magazine division of Time Warner (TWX), which owns Fortune.)
Ripplewood's foray into Hostess was partly enabled by Collins's connections in the Democratic Party. He wanted to explore deals with union-involved companies and sought the help of former congressman Gephardt, who in 2005 founded the Gephardt Group, an Atlanta consulting firm that provides "labor advisory services." In his 2004 presidential bid, Gephardt -- whose father was a Teamsters milk truck driver -- was endorsed by 21 of the largest U.S. labor unions; in 2003, Collins was one of 19 "founding members" of Gephardt's New York State leadership committee. (Today, Ripplewood and Hostess are listed online as major clients of Gephardt's consulting group, which is also an equity owner of Hostess.) Back when Hostess was coming out of the first bankruptcy, Gephardt's credibility with both Ripplewood and the Teamsters gave them each a little more room to break bread.
Oh and looky loo! Dick Gephart's son is Ho Ho deep in this mess, along with his 100K-a-year salaried position on the board of Hostess! Ah nepotism, it's good to know you are alive and well no matter what the party affiliation ...
You can't live on a 50% paycut.Depends on the pay before hand. ;D (percentages tend to be meaningless without some reference)
I highly doubt you can live on 50% of what they were getting. I'm pretty sure that, at the least, a year of unemployment would pay more.
You can't live on a 50% paycut.
They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
Oh wait, I forgot about unemployment checks. No wonder they simply let the company die.
Yes those evil Republican vulture capital ..oh:
The first use of the word "Republican" in this thread is in your post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
For goodness sake, would you at least pretend to do so some research before you cram everything into your childish Randian worldview?
THE
EMPLOYEES
ARE
NOT
THE
PROBLEM!
Clearly the employees of the company are at fault -- they're all lazy, and just want free stuff. I know this because I once heard the phrase "supply and demand."
They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.For goodness sake, would you at least pretend to do so some research before you cram everything into your childish Randian worldview?
THE
EMPLOYEES
ARE
NOT
THE
PROBLEM!
So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)
So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)
Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about y'all, but anyone who disagrees with me is a stooge of the plutocracy.
Vive le Galt!
So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
I never said that this was only the employees faults. You're just jumping to conclusions because I said I think they made a stupid mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Down with Silly Symphonies!
Vive le Looney Tunes!
Job hunting is a full time job.You can't live on a 50% paycut.They can't live on no pay either. If they were smart, they would have taken the reduced pay while looking for a new job instead of destroying the company on the spot.
I have done job hunting (successfully) while working on a full time job that I didn't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
Uh, you just generalized Randian viewpoints as being childish. I'm not fond of Randian beliefs because they are too Libertarian for my liking(I'm a conservative) but I don't feel a need to insult their view. I remember you were the same way over the Tea Party. For some reason people such yourself and a few others on this board have a need to ridicule or demonize anybody that has a different viewpoint than your own. I just don't get it. *shrugs*
I never said that this was only the employees faults. You're just jumping to conclusions because I said I think they made a stupid mistake.So, anybody who disagrees with you has a childish Randian worldview(yes, I'm using the same silly strawman argument that you used earlier)? ;)Nope -- only those displaying a childish Randian worldview can fairly be said to have one. Unlike others in this thread, I did not generalize.
However, I will do so now: Anyone ignorant of publicly-available information about the financial condition of the company -- which shows it has been looted by venture capitalists -- shouldn't be commenting, because doing so makes them appear foolish.
Or did the CEO offer the unions a deal he knew they couldn't accept, knowing he'd still get his $1.75 million in bonuses?
Please justify a CEO getting a bonus when he was unable to avoid bankruptcy.