(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Economists predict Twinkies will survive bankruptcy, nuclear holocaust

19 Nov 2012 08:22 AM   |   2561 clicks   |   Local10 WPLG
Showing 1-50 of 71 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
Cythraul     
What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?

19 Nov 2012 08:14 AM
CarnySaur     

Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?


They can put them in the same shoebox they keep their Facebook shares in?

19 Nov 2012 08:24 AM
MDGeist     
Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

19 Nov 2012 08:26 AM
Pants full of macaroni!!     
There we go again. Out of all the Hostess products, Twinkies are the only ones anyone ever mentions.

19 Nov 2012 08:27 AM
ltdanman44     

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


but when management screws its employees that's ok right?

19 Nov 2012 08:28 AM
babymulch     
more importantly, can twinkies survive another string of ceo's with no experience in a relevant industry?

19 Nov 2012 08:35 AM
Parson1122     
Guess I shouldn't have bid $500.00 for that unopened box of Twinkies on Ebay.

19 Nov 2012 08:36 AM
jbhall3636     

Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?


I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.

19 Nov 2012 08:38 AM
2CountyFairs     

jbhall3636: Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?

I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.


I can still eat them, but they aren't nearly as good as I remember them being 25 years ago.

19 Nov 2012 08:40 AM
Titor's Time Machine     

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.

19 Nov 2012 08:40 AM
WSUCanuck     
America in 2012. Employees not wanting their salary slashed by 50% while management votes themselves raises of 300% = greedy employees & benevolent management.

19 Nov 2012 08:40 AM
Pumpernickel bread     

ltdanman44: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


It boils down to who gets what from corporate profits. No unions, and employees are paid the minimum the market will allow, while executives typically have no reservations about giving themselves raises. Case in point here, the CEO got a 300% raise the year before the collapse. That just looks like executives, and not workers, trying to rape the company as it is dying.

19 Nov 2012 08:41 AM
Dr. Whoof     

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


From the article about the person who works at Hostess - the offer management made:

1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.


The $3+ an hour was the pension benefit that the company "borrowed" against.

So yeah, totally the Union's fault. I mean, hey, taking a 27% pay cut over 5 years is totally ok, right?

19 Nov 2012 08:41 AM
Altman     
Quote from the article: "The company, weighed down by .... rising labor costs"

Bullshiat I say. Hostess severely cut the wages of their workers a few years ago, stole their pensions, and now wanted to enact another draconian cut. Good on the workers for saying NO.

Hostess is just trying to hide the fact that they were terribly mismanaged in the past decade, all while the execs got huge pay raises.

19 Nov 2012 08:41 AM
Cythraul     

jbhall3636: Cythraul: What about all those people who bought Twinkies in a rush over the past couple of days?

I went out on Friday and bought the last couple of boxes at my grocery store. I didn't buy them to resell, but just figured a few bucks to have a Twinkie every now and then if they didn't come back wasn't too bad a deal. I hadn't had a Twinkie in years. It was farking gross. No wonder they couldn't stay in business. I should have left the box unopened so I COULD sell them.


I think Twinkies are somewhat of a 'kid food.' I remember enjoying them quite a bit as a child. I imagine my love of them may have diminished over the years as I've aged.

19 Nov 2012 08:41 AM
IKilled007     
Thank God. I was worried American obesity rates would drop below 40%.

19 Nov 2012 08:42 AM
spyderqueen     

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


Seriously. There have been quite a few times where I see how something went down and think "fark the unions." This is NOT one of those times. Management was farking them over but hard.

/Do not actually like Twinkies
//Do like those fruit pies though

19 Nov 2012 08:42 AM
Non-evil Monkey     

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


From my understanding it was a tad more complex then that. The company had been on a pretty serious downward trend for a while and the massive paycut the management was asking of the union would of only delayed the inevitable, perhaps not even by all that long.

If nothing else, it's important to remember that the union was not asking for a raise, the management was asking them to take a very significant cut to pay and benefits. This was after the union had agreed to concessions the last time the contract was up for negotiations.

19 Nov 2012 08:42 AM
sodomizer     

ltdanman44: but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


How does management screw its employees?

It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.

Any more responsibility than that is not on the employers nor should it be.

19 Nov 2012 08:42 AM
deadsanta     

MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...


I know it's a troll, but for everyone who is tempted to respond, read this rundown by mediamatters instead:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012 /11/16/fox-ignores-hostess-array - of-troubles-to-scapeg/191440

Long story short: Their last bankruptcy was poorly managed; execs took raises while asking workers to take cuts, unions had already taken salary and pension cuts; the brand would have lost money without pension obligations, those were the least of their debt issues.

/sorry, can't get fark to link direct, throws away URL because "web server didn't send a content-type header", whaaa???

19 Nov 2012 08:43 AM
IlGreven     

babymulch: more importantly, can twinkies survive another string of ceo's with no experience in a relevant industry?


CEO's will fail in any industry if they keep trying to cut costs willy-nilly, with no clue as to why they have those costs in the first place.

/There's an old adage, something about stitches or something. I dunno, thought it might be relevant.

19 Nov 2012 08:43 AM
rumpelstiltskin    [TotalFark]  

ltdanman44: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

but when management screws its employees that's ok right?


Management acted heroically in this case. For 15 years, they worked diligently with the best minds on Wall Street to create value. Diligently, from dawn until dusk, searching every corner of every spreadsheet for every dollar they didn't think anyone would miss. Or at least anyone important would miss.
But in the end they were foiled by a bunch of greedy bakers.

19 Nov 2012 08:44 AM
Altman     

sodomizer: It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.


The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.

19 Nov 2012 08:45 AM
AgentPothead     
sodomizer did you completely gloss over the fact that management was giving itself insanely large bonuses? Hell their ceo went from 750,000 to 2,5000,000 the same year he's in court trying to get the company to file for bankruptcy AND asking his workforce to take a 27% pay cut. That doesn't make a lick of sense. And you sit there and with a straight face ask how management screws it's employees? Pull your head out of your ass and maybe with those things called eyes you can figure it out.

19 Nov 2012 08:47 AM
sodomizer     

spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.


Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

You're talking about a few million there; how many millions does it take to pay the whole workforce that 8%?

And was the 8% above industry standard?

These are the questions you should ask, not some out of context comparison.

I would not want someone who thought in such a simplistic manner to run any company I'd work for.

19 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
Cythraul     

AgentPothead: sodomizer did you completely gloss over the fact that management was giving itself insanely large bonuses? Hell their ceo went from 750,000 to 2,5000,000 the same year he's in court trying to get the company to file for bankruptcy AND asking his workforce to take a 27% pay cut. That doesn't make a lick of sense. And you sit there and with a straight face ask how management screws it's employees? Pull your head out of your ass and maybe with those things called eyes you can figure it out.


Are you trying to have a serious talk with 'sodomizer?' I thought he/she was a troll?

19 Nov 2012 08:49 AM
Pants full of macaroni!!     

Cythraul: Are you trying to have a serious talk with 'sodomizer?' I thought he/she was a troll?


Srsly. And where's his tagline, the one about Liberals being scavengers of human misery or whatever?

19 Nov 2012 08:51 AM
WSUCanuck     
sodomizer pt 1 How does management screw its employees?

It offers payment for certain work at a certain rate.

Employees can take it, or leave it.



sodomizer pt 2 To attract a good employee, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

I'm not surprised s/he doesn't see the logical disconnect.

19 Nov 2012 08:53 AM
WSUCanuck     
I love that argument.

"Employees should just take what they get, but if you want to attract GOOD employees, you need to pay a competitive salary! Why don't the employees see that and be happy with the pay they get?"


Are you confused yet?

19 Nov 2012 08:54 AM
Nezu Chiza     
sodomizer, I know it's just feeding you, but I have to ask...

Are you really saying that the CEO of Hostess was a good CEO? Because if not, then your comment about needing a competitive salary to attract a good CEO and upper management is wrong, and if you are you're applauding them for running the company into the ground with their management skills. Which is it?

19 Nov 2012 08:55 AM
WSUCanuck     
Nezu Chiza

Management should be happy with the pay they get!

19 Nov 2012 08:57 AM
Jim.Casy     

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


You dont understand, those are job creators you're talking about!

/dont make them angry, or they'll steal the sun from the sky

19 Nov 2012 08:59 AM
sodomizer     

Nezu Chiza: Are you really saying that the CEO of Hostess was a good CEO? Because if not, then your comment about needing a competitive salary to attract a good CEO and upper management is wrong


Not necessarily.

You need to pay a going rate for a qualified CEO, or you'll never get one. It's unclear whether the person in that position now is competent, but it's clear that if you refuse to pay that rate, there's zero pressure on that person to perform because no one else (who is competent) will take the job.

19 Nov 2012 09:01 AM
sodomizer     

Altman: The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.


Forming a union is not "leaving" it. Forming a union is demanding more money, bennies, etc. than you're worth.

19 Nov 2012 09:02 AM
ferretman    [TotalFark]  
Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

i280.photobucket.comView Full Size


That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.

19 Nov 2012 09:20 AM
JackieRabbit     
"The tasty cream disgusting grease-filled golden yellow-colored spongedustcakes are likely to survive turn you into a lardass by age 10"

FTFT

19 Nov 2012 09:21 AM
Cheron     
Stashed on my property are sealed 55 gallon drums of supplies I'll need when push comes to shove. Two of them are Twinkies as they will be good for trade.

19 Nov 2012 09:22 AM
Day_Old_Dutchie     

sodomizer: spyderqueen: Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

Life is so much more complicated than linear comparisons.

To attract a good CEO, you have to pay a competitive salary. Ditto for upper-level staff.

You're talking about a few million there; how many millions does it take to pay the whole workforce that 8%?

And was the 8% above industry standard?

These are the questions you should ask, not some out of context comparison.

I would not want someone who thought in such a simplistic manner to run any company I'd work for.


It's the principle of the whole thing - Bumping your own pay 3x while asking everyone else to do with less appears to be a heartless FARK YOU to your employees.

That fact that all CEOs, sports figures, entertainers and politicians (unless they are totally stupid) could forgo their compensation and still live comfortably for the rest of their lives, but they are TOO FARKIN' GREEDY.

1%, this is why people hate you and act greedy themselves. LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!

19 Nov 2012 09:33 AM
special20    [TotalFark]  

ferretman: Wharrgharble UNIONS!


Did you have a nice weekend?

19 Nov 2012 09:34 AM
sodomizer     

Day_Old_Dutchie: It's the principle of the whole thing - Bumping your own pay 3x while asking everyone else to do with less appears to be a heartless FARK YOU to your employees.


Unionizing to demand more pay than the market allots is a giant FARK YOU to the whole company. Guess management doesn't look so bad.

On a practical level, if it were the first clash, I'd agree with you. I think however that bad faith was established here long ago.

These CEOs are nicer than I would have been. I would have either outsourced to China or invested in robotics, and fired all the workers (IIRC law prohibits me from firing only the union workers, or I'd do that).

But the point is well made that when you wonder why we manufacture almost nothing in the USA, it's because of unions. It's also worth noting that rarely are the unions more than a minority of the workers, and unions tend to go hand in hand with violence, organized crime and other methods of coercing the rest of the workers into joining the union shop.

19 Nov 2012 09:40 AM
BatBat     
The road to Greece is paved with Twinkies.

19 Nov 2012 09:41 AM
ChaoticLimbs     

ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

[i280.photobucket.com image 850x637]

That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.


Moron, they weren't asking for more money.

Link

19 Nov 2012 09:43 AM
sodomizer     

ChaoticLimbs: Moron, they weren't asking for more money.


When you raise the pay past a reasonable point, you don't ask for more money. What you do is threaten to strike and play the victim if management demands reasonable wages.

19 Nov 2012 09:47 AM
xanadian    [TotalFark]  

Titor's Time Machine: MDGeist: Glad to see the 30% who were in the union screwed the rest of the work force with their greed. Go unions...

Greed?

Greed was Hostess trying to cut employees pay by 8% and benefits by 32% while the CEO gave himself a 300% raise (from $750,000 yr to $2,550,000 yr). Additionally, nine other executives received pay increases ranging from 60% to 100% while filing their second bankruptcy.

But please, continue to blame the actual workers and the union who were protesting this nonsense.

Look at how stupid you look.


Where are you getting your numbers from? Got a link you can share?

19 Nov 2012 09:47 AM
xanadian    [TotalFark]  

ChaoticLimbs: ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.

[i280.photobucket.com image 850x637]

That's the biggest problem with unions, pay raises do not stop...even for the most mundane jobs people are over-paid for the job it-self.

Moron, they weren't asking for more money.

Link


Yeah, I remember there being some rather draconian cuts to wages and benefits.

19 Nov 2012 09:49 AM
rezaxis     
Now I want a couple of boxes of ding dongs and ho hos. You never know what you have till it's gone.

19 Nov 2012 09:52 AM
xanadian    [TotalFark]  

sodomizer: Altman: The employees 'left' it. Now Hostess is dead. Good work, Management.

Forming a union is not "leaving" it. Forming a union is demanding more money, bennies, etc. than you're worth.


Unfortunately, I've seen SOME of this from unions, but it's not always true. The last major construction job I was on, you HAD to be union or you could not work there. At. All. Unless you were white collar, in which case you had to work 80-hour weeks and get paid peanuts. It was kind of shocking to learn that a laborer made more money than half the white-collar staff did. I know this because a lot of the union people CROWED about it.

Unions are supposed to be there to protect its members from the potential abuses of management. But, a lot of it seems self-serving at the detriment of people who don't want to belong to a union. Although, and I'll give them this credit, in the more specialized unions you had to have certain training and prerequisites (i.e., being a journeyman, or if an apprentice you had to work under a journeyman, etc).

19 Nov 2012 09:54 AM
xanadian    [TotalFark]  

rezaxis: Now I want a couple of boxes of ding dongs and ho hos. You never know what you have till it's gone.


Funny Bones or go home.

/Good thing Drake's is still around
//...I think

19 Nov 2012 09:55 AM
Ctrl-Alt-Del    [TotalFark]  

sodomizer: Unionizing to demand more pay than the market allots is a giant FARK YOU to the whole company.


I know what you mean. The way they used their secret union mind control device to make the company agree to their contract terms is pretty scary. It's such a shame that the company is forced to agree to their horrible demands rather than say "no, thanks, your demands for this contract are too great" and hire replacement workers

sodomizer: But the point is well made that when you wonder why we manufacture almost nothing in the USA, it's because of unions.


I know. We would all be much better off if manufacturers could simply hire Americans for the slave wages they pay oversees workers.

19 Nov 2012 09:57 AM
IlGreven     

ferretman: Yeah....because someone whose job it is to push product into the middle of the fryer daily deserves $16+/hr pay.


Hey, look everyone! Someone who's jealous of someone who makes $16/hr! 

Keep blaming the workers, and soon you'll be jealous of someone who makes $12/hr!

19 Nov 2012 09:59 AM
Showing 1-50 of 71 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined