• avatar
    • 2 years 9 months ago
    • Posts: 1927
    I always liked Little Debbie better. But nothing has quite the icon status of the Twinkie.

    bassman21 wrote:
    Gotta love public sector unions. :roll:


    Yeah, how dare those people refuse to take pay cuts while the CEO salary triples. They wouldn't have any pay at all if it weren't for the CEO! How dare individuals group together to act as one body in pursuit of their own interests? What a bunch of selfish assholes!
    tangspot2 wrote:
    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
      • 2 years 9 months ago
      • Posts: 1037
      It looks like they will stay in business. Good luck selling that stock pile of Twinkies lol.
      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
      • avatar
        • 2 years 9 months ago
        • Posts: 4578
        stake n sheak wrote:
        I always liked Little Debbie better. But nothing has quite the icon status of the Twinkie.

        bassman21 wrote:
        Gotta love public sector unions. :roll:


        Yeah, how dare those people refuse to take pay cuts while the CEO salary triples. They wouldn't have any pay at all if it weren't for the CEO! How dare individuals group together to act as one body in pursuit of their own interests? What a bunch of selfish assholes!


        Do know what job market value is? Yes there is a going rate for CEO. Its a wise move when your company is trying to restructure after bankruptcy to hire a CEO that has some experience. Those individuals don't come cheap. So yes the CEO will sometimes get a big pay raise while the workers get nothing. It sucks, but its how business works. The cost of the CEO is nothing compared to the cost of 18,300 employees. Even a minuscule pay raise for that many employees can cost a company millions.

        Walmart is in a similar situation in terms of the employees thinking that money grows on trees. Somehow people think that Walmart can afford to add health insurance to more of their 2.1 million workers without it affecting their bottom line. Add to this that there are people in Washington wanting to increase their taxes. To recover these cost they will raise their prices or find other ways to cut back. This means low volume stores may close and fewer people will get hired.

        Jesus if you don't like what the company pays go somewhere else. As long as people are willing to take a certain type of job for a certain pay the company will not increase the pay. When they are forced to, they only become more picky about who they hire. In the case of Hostess they reach a point where it isn't cost effective to stay in business. As it is young people can't find jobs because older people with more experience are taking them. Do you really want getting a low skill job to be as hard as getting one that pays 40k a year?

        Remember....companies must be competitive with their prices. If they have millions in added cost they must raise their prices or find other ways to cut back. They can't just raise their prices when competitors are selling similar products for much less. If they do people will buy less and the will just lose more money. Its a balance and why many jobs end up going overseas.
        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
        • avatar
          • 2 years 9 months ago
          • Posts: 410
          bassman21 wrote:
          stake n sheak wrote:
          I always liked Little Debbie better. But nothing has quite the icon status of the Twinkie.

          bassman21 wrote:
          Gotta love public sector unions. :roll:


          Yeah, how dare those people refuse to take pay cuts while the CEO salary triples. They wouldn't have any pay at all if it weren't for the CEO! How dare individuals group together to act as one body in pursuit of their own interests? What a bunch of selfish assholes!


          Do know what job market value is? Yes there is a going rate for CEO. Its a wise move when your company is trying to restructure after bankruptcy to hire a CEO that has some experience. Those individuals don't come cheap. So yes the CEO will sometimes get a big pay raise while the workers get nothing. It sucks, but its how business works. The cost of the CEO is nothing compared to the cost of 18,300 employees. Even a minuscule pay raise for that many employees can cost a company millions.

          Walmart is in a similar situation in terms of the employees thinking that money grows on trees. Somehow people think that Walmart can afford to add health insurance to more of their 2.1 million workers without it affecting their bottom line. Add to this that there are people in Washington wanting to increase their taxes. To recover these cost they will raise their prices or find other ways to cut back. This means low volume stores may close and fewer people will get hired.

          Jesus if you don't like what the company pays go somewhere else. As long as people are willing to take a certain type of job for a certain pay the company will not increase the pay. When they are forced to, they only become more picky about who they hire. In the case of Hostess they reach a point where it isn't cost effective to stay in business. As it is young people can't find jobs because older people with more experience are taking them. Do you really want getting a low skill job to be as hard as getting one that pays 40k a year?

          Remember....companies must be competitive with their prices. If they have millions in added cost they must raise their prices or find other ways to cut back. They can't just raise their prices when competitors are selling similar products for much less. If they do people will buy less and the will just lose more money. Its a balance and why many jobs end up going overseas.



          CEO's pay should be tied to the average pay of the workers they oversee. I agree that the guy running the show should get paid more but why should ceo's be getting raises and bonuses while their employees get benefits and pay cuts and laid off. If there pay was tied to their workers in some way (i.e they can only make what their companies average salary is X 100 or whatever) this would encourage better conditions for all. Greed is killing the middle class and the lack of a middle class eventually breeds a third world country.
          "Good Nyborg "
          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
          • avatar
            • 2 years 9 months ago
            • Posts: 2420
            • Forum Mod
            • Editor
            Try to stay on topic people. This is about Hostess.
            My Last Article For RetroJunk

            Remembering RetroJunk
            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
            • avatar
              • 2 years 9 months ago
              • Posts: 410
              seems theres still hope for us twinkie lovers!

              Your text to link here...
              "Good Nyborg "
              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
              • avatar
                • 2 years 9 months ago
                • Posts: 1927
                "trying to restructure after bankruptcy to hire a CEO that has some experience
                OK, Hostess is not even a case of hiring a new, higher priced CEO. This is one guy named Brian Driscoll who got a raise from $750,000 to 2.5 million in one year. And many other six figure salaries got 60-100% raises. During bankruptcy proceedings.

                "the CEO will sometimes get a big pay raise while the workers get nothing"
                We're not talking about employees getting 'nothing', either. They got cuts. Hostess wanted to cut their pension program from $100M to $25M. And cut wages, and cut health benefits by 17%. And this is OK. So basically, a company should just do whatever they want and it doesn't matter. Yes it costs millions. For a company that makes billions. How business works? Why is it hard for people to understand that doing business has costs? Because it's so easy to violate human rights in another country where the people aren't real people? Because dollar signs clog up eyes? What is it?

                "people think that Walmart can afford to add health insurance to more of their 2.1 million workers without it affecting their bottom line
                ha, ha, ha! Walmart's bottom line? Which is great by fucking over everybody...did you ever read about Walmart and Vlasic? If you haven't I encourage you to google that, read seriously about it, and come back and tell me Walmart deserves respect and assistance from the govt. And the health insurance thing. Yeah, giving their employees health insurance might cost them money. That means they should better just tell their employees (read: people who have a job) to go on welfare for insurance--they really do this--that is OK with you? And then you will talk shit about people on welfare to say they should just "take responsibility for their lives."

                When Walmart's bottom line starts being good for anybody besides Walmart, then I will be concerned about it. Until then, let Walmart worry about themselves. Talk about entitlement! Let's end the corporate welfare, which costs this country many, many times more what individual welfare for ghetto residents costs.

                "go somewhere else" Not a possibility for everybody. This is the Norquist economy. Have you ever been to a town where Walmart has run everybody else out of business? There is nowhere else to go. Are the customers who shop at Walmart instead of the former local businesses in their community as short-sighted and selfish as Sam Walton himself? Yeah, maybe they are. But their shortsightedness comes from being poor and not seeing another way to make it. Sammy's is just because he's an asshole.

                "To recover these cost they will raise their prices or find other ways to cut back."
                I am so sick of hearing this. This is what people who want to FUCK THE COUNTRY say. This is what you hear from people who want to increase their own bottom line and have zero concern for consumer prices or jobs as long as they are pulling in fat stacks. Does Walmart really want to hire more people? Only as far as they have to to keep most of their current employees from making full time. Why is the definition of success only for the company and not for the workers? Do they not deserve success too?

                "As long as people are willing to take a certain type of job for a certain pay the company will not increase the pay."
                As long as people cannot get higher pay they will be forced to accept lower pay. How can you put the blame for this on those who take the pay they can get instead of those who decide the pay rate?

                "As it is young people can't find jobs because older people with more experience are taking them. Do you really want getting a low skill job to be as hard as getting one that pays 40k a year?"
                40k ain't shit in a city (where I live). So no, I agree with the goal of course. But lowering taxes has not and will not fix things. When economy is good, pay is higher and there are lots of jobs. When taxes are high, economy is good. Not enough workers to fill jobs. You can have a career. You either go to college, get hired just for doing well and having a degree, and remain there for until retirement (or start your own business); or you get a blue collar job and stay there until retirement with cost-of-living increase raises in line with inflation so your quality of life never goes down (or start your own business). This is how our fathers worked. And our grandfathers too, assuming they were young enough to be out of agricultural life and into the society at a point where careers were a thing. During this time, what were taxes on the company owners? They were high.

                When economy is bad, that is when young people can't get jobs, old people have to be greeters at Walmart, etc. Economy is bad and decreasing cost of doing business, with lower tax on Richie Rich, keeping minimum wage down, etc. We can see over the past 50 years this does not fix things.
                tangspot2 wrote:
                Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                • avatar
                  • 2 years 9 months ago
                  • Posts: 1927
                  "Remember....companies must be competitive with their prices."
                  The solution is simple. Remove the competitive advantage. You send jobs overseas, the products made there don't get to come back. This would take time to implement but I don't see how paying foreigners five cents an hour to be "competitive" should be allowed in the first place. Yes it makes a good cheaper here in the short run. In the long run, the good is cheaper, jobs leave America, remaining jobs get lower pay, people have less money to spend. That's what coddling corporations and allowing them to do any damn thing they want does. That's what ruins our economy. And if anybody has something to say about materials being unavailable here (because we've mined and landfilled them all already) I would like to ask these proponents of American Exceptionalism why they can't come up with new and renewable materials...because the high-income dont-tax-me-bro guys, again, care for nothing but their own paper. Not interested in innovating any more, only in cutting cost and raising profits. Here's the way business works, you've got to put some money into r&d, another cost of doing business that made America great.

                  PS: If price is the only way you can be competitive, your business plan sucks and you do not innovate.


                  History lesson time
                  Since 1979 the average after-tax income of the very wealthiest Americans – the top 1 percent – has risen nearly four-fold. Over the same period, the middle sixty percent of Americans saw their incomes rise just 40 percent. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. Among the top 0.1 percent — the highest-income one out of every thousand American households — the average tax rate, including Federal income and payroll taxes, has dropped a stunning 50 percent over the last 50 years, from 51 percent to 26 percent. This is nearly the lowest rate in over 50 years and is, in fact, one-half the rate they would have paid in 1960.
                  Do you believe the economy is in better shape now than it was in 1960? Do you believe that continuing the trend we have had since then is going to make things better, when it hasn't so far? That is foolish. Do you believe we are now in a bad situation? The lowering of taxes on Richie Rich and lassiez-faire stuff has gotten us into that bad situation.

                  Here's a fun graph...

                  When was US economy the strongest? When was the biggest surge of companies starting who became successful? When the top bracket income tax was 80 and 90 percent. When the govt was making new infrastructure (which helped to make America great.) And with economy in the shitter for past 10 years we have it at only 35%, more than double what Willard (for example) pays, within the limited documentation he was willing to release.
                  tangspot2 wrote:
                  Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                  • avatar
                    • 2 years 9 months ago
                    • Posts: 1927
                    vkimo wrote:
                    Try to stay on topic people. This is about Hostess.

                    ah, poopkins. Well I put lot of thought into that. But if you say so I will delete above posts. Or you can do it
                    tangspot2 wrote:
                    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                    • avatar
                      • 2 years 9 months ago
                      • Posts: 410
                      stake n shake you are the man.... I couldn't agree more with every point you just made (hopefully your posts stay up).
                      "Good Nyborg "
                      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                      • avatar
                        • 2 years 9 months ago
                        • Posts: 4578
                        Yea we probably should do a thread about this in "real world news" and keep this from getting like the comments section of a youtube video.

                        My libertarian views generally want the government and unions out of business. Private sector unions are OK, but I don't think anyone should be forced to join a union.

                        Texas is a right to work state (meaning unions have less power) and we have done well during this recession. Many economist agree that a big part of it has been due to the fact that we're more "business friendly". Business will comply to a degree, but they reach a point where its just more cost effective to move elsewhere leaving everyone out of a job. Unions can be a good thing, but they can and do go too far.

                        Again what the CEO get paid becomes pocket change when you spread it out to the employees. I agree the same CEO should not have gotten that big of a raise if the employees are getting cuts, but the cuts are needed to save the company. Ultimately the unions got the employees promises that the company can't keep (pensions, salary). I don't mean to sound cold, but those workers are getting overpaid for what they do. You can hire workers in a none union state to do the same work for $8 an hour which the competitor is probably already doing. This is why Hostess can't stay profitable. Sorry but until the general public is willing pay $5 for a package of Ding Dongs what you want never work.

                        I used to be right with you when I was younger stake n shake. It all sounds good in theory, but it just doesn't work in practice. If a company has great benefits for their workers its because they can charge enough for their products and service. When competitors comes along and does it cheaper the company must find way to stay competitive. You can sell your product on quality if there is a large enough market otherwise you must cut cost. If you had Hostess products in the 80s you know they failed with quality part.

                        Look its clear Hostess has failed on many levels. The company is to blame, but I think the unions are too. It just doesn't seem right that a union can shut a whole operation down because a company doesn't want to meet their demands. If I don't show up to work I get fired and there are plenty of people ready to take my job.
                        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                        • avatar
                          • 2 years 9 months ago
                          • Posts: 2420
                          • Forum Mod
                          • Editor
                          stake n sheak wrote:
                          vkimo wrote:
                          Try to stay on topic people. This is about Hostess.

                          ah, poopkins. Well I put lot of thought into that. But if you say so I will delete above posts. Or you can do it


                          Nah it can stay up. Your posts are so in depth and well structured I couldn't delete it! But do try to stay on topic haha
                          My Last Article For RetroJunk

                          Remembering RetroJunk
                          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                          • avatar
                            • 2 years 9 months ago
                            • Posts: 1927
                            Thank you vkimo.
                            bassman21 wrote:
                            Yea we probably should do a thread about this in "real world news" and keep this from getting like the comments section of a youtube video.

                            I'm down with that.

                            The Ronin Identity wrote:
                            seems theres still hope for us twinkie lovers!

                            Your text to link here...

                            Unfortunately not. As some have said here, maybe another company will take over the brand and products. But we all know (cf. temporary comeback of Hydrox) the taste may not be quite the same if that happens.

                            If you look at Hostess website right now, the title of the page is "Hostess is closed." Earlier today there was a FAQ including "how can I apply for employment" and a 'careers' tab on the page (which redirected to closed.aspx) which was a little bit funny, but all that seems to be gone now.

                            I still like nutty bars and zebra cakes (Little Debbie) better than twinkies and hohos.
                            tangspot2 wrote:
                            Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                            Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                            • avatar
                              • 2 years 9 months ago
                              • Posts: 7013
                              stake n sheak wrote:
                              Thank you vkimo.
                              bassman21 wrote:
                              Yea we probably should do a thread about this in "real world news" and keep this from getting like the comments section of a youtube video.

                              I'm down with that.

                              The Ronin Identity wrote:
                              seems theres still hope for us twinkie lovers!

                              Your text to link here...

                              Unfortunately not. As some have said here, maybe another company will take over the brand and products. But we all know (cf. temporary comeback of Hydrox) the taste may not be quite the same if that happens.

                              If you look at Hostess website right now, the title of the page is "Hostess is closed." Earlier today there was a FAQ including "how can I apply for employment" and a 'careers' tab on the page (which redirected to closed.aspx) which was a little bit funny, but all that seems to be gone now.

                              I still like nutty bars and zebra cakes (Little Debbie) better than twinkies and hohos.





                              Excellent posts stake n sheak, especially the history lesson posted above.

                              Hostess filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court only to have the motion delayed pending mediation between Hostess Brands Inc. and the bakers union.

                              As of today Hostess has issued a statement:

                              "A mediation today with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union was unsuccessful".

                              U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain says Hostess Brands Inc. must return to liquidation after mediation with the bakers union failed.
                              The Eldorado is dead. Long live the Eldorado.
                              Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                              • avatar
                                • 2 years 2 months ago
                                • Posts: 1927
                                Well well well. Three weeks from today, Twinkies will return.
                                tangspot2 wrote:
                                Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                                Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                • avatar
                                  • 2 years 2 months ago
                                  • Posts: 616
                                  But will they taste the same as before?

                                  I highly doubt they will.

                                  Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                  • avatar
                                    • 2 years 2 months ago
                                    • Posts: 1927
                                    It's the same company, using some of the same equipment. They consider increasing the line, but I don't think they're changing the original recipe...
                                    tangspot2 wrote:
                                    Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                                    Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                    • avatar
                                      • 2 years 2 months ago
                                      • Posts: 10129
                                      PixarFan88 wrote:
                                      But will they taste the same as before?

                                      I highly doubt they will.

                                      They might make low-fat Twinkies or something.
                                      thecrow174: Lover of martial arts cinema.
                                      Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                      • avatar
                                        • 2 years 2 months ago
                                        • Posts: 4578
                                        The original recipe tasted much better than what Hostess was putting out. If they go old school that would be awesome.
                                        Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                        • avatar
                                          • 2 years 2 months ago
                                          • Posts: 1927
                                          Being not a customer of Twinkies or junk food in general, I didn't know the original recipe had ever been changed. Would be nice if they do a 'throwback' style like Mountain Dew. I wish more companies would use real sugar and other real ingredients. I think the market would support it. Of course, to start and market this kind of thing is a decision for executives, not the rank & file.
                                          tangspot2 wrote:
                                          Mrs. stake you say some nasty on my threads. Dirty bitch
                                          Are you sure you want to delete this post? Yes | No
                                          Search
                                          Users Online