America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Racist!

Huh... been visiting TW?

I'm torn. Now I have to decide whether to get rid of some ammo and Spam to make room for a stash of Twinkies, or do I just keep the ammo and Spam, and forage for still-fresh Twinkies after TEOTWAWKI?

I'm still waiting for my free Volt...

So white chocolate is good, but not dark chocolate?

RACIST!

I thought oreos were....

No it's not. It's the stockholders'/owners' business. Screw the employees, unless they are equity stakeholders.

The employees can go piss in the wind. They can either work for what is being offered or what is agreed upon- or go find work elsewhere. Plenty of unemployed people who would gladly fill their shoes.

Since 5,000 have gone out on strike of their own volition (as opposed to being ready willing and able to work like others) and would still be earning significantly more than unemployment pays had they taken what was offered until they found themselves better pay - I say those who went out on strike should get zero unemployment compensation with government money.

The new reality people need to come to terms with is that there are plenty of other people in the world willing to do the same jobs for less pay. I wouldn't condemn the other union(s) whose employees where willing to work for less. Their union(s) kept its/their members employed. They don't deserve any criticism form us for that and are an example of the good unions CAN do.

There is no silent gorilla in the room. I won't believe that increased fuel expenses and/or a weak dollar are why Hostess is failing unless you can show me Hostess' numbers that prove that.

I see you eyeballing my box of Twinkies.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- For many of Hostess Brands' 18,500 workers and their families, the closing of their iconic company Friday is a devastating emotional and economic blow.

But others say the jobs weren't worth saving because of pay and benefit cuts.





For a member of the bakery workers' union whose strike a week ago led Hostess to shut operations, it's a sad day. "It was a great job. A lot of people put kids through college, paid for mortgages," he said.

The worker, who spoke on the condition his name not be used, said he spoke out at the union meeting against going on strike. "I said, 'If you're unhappy with the situation, then you need to quit. There are people with responsibilities and mortgages. We all can't afford to strike,'" said the veteran who worked loading trucks.

Related: Hostess shuts down for good

The worker said he blames management more than he blames his fellow union members who went on strike. And he's worried about the future.

"I'm 61, I was two years away from retirement," he said. "There aren't many jobs out there for someone like me."

However, other workers said the concessions being demanded by Hostess were just too great.

Mike Hummell, a receiving clerk and a member of the Bakers' union working in Lenexa, Kan., said he was making about $48,000 in 2005 before the company's first trip through bankruptcy. Concessions during that reorganization cut his pay to $34,000 last year, earning $16.12 an hour. He said the latest contract demands would have cut his pay to about $25,000, with significantly higher out-of-pocket expenses for insurance.

Related: Laid-off workers face tough job market

"The point is the jobs they're offering us aren't worth saving," he said Friday. "It instantly casts me into poverty. I wouldn't be able to make my house payment. My take-home would be less than unemployment benefits. Being on unemployment while we search for a new job, that's a better choice than working these hours for poverty wages."

While the Bakers' union voted against the concessions and went on strike, the 6,700 members of the Teamsters union narrowly ratified their own concession deal. Many of the drivers, who also served as Hostess' primary sales force, were earning more money than the bakers, getting commissions for the products they sold to grocery stores.

Related: Twinkies will survive

Tracy Fea, the wife of a Teamster working at Hostess, said she's particularly mad at the Bakers' union for the strike.

"While they [Teamsters at Hostess] were not at all happy about the additional concessions, they did not want to lose their jobs," she said. "My husband and I feel that if these employees [Bakers] were so unhappy ... then they should have quit so the company could continue on and the remaining employees that want to work could."

But Joe Lannan, a Teamster based in Kentucky, said he understands the bakers who walked out. He said he voted against the contract and would have struck if the vote had gone that way.

He said the split among Teamsters was between more senior workers and the newer drivers, such as himself. He's been at Hostess about a year.

"There were a lot of nervous guys, mostly with more senior drivers. I've seen a lot of teary eyes," he said.

But he's hopeful that a lot of the drivers will be able to find jobs due to the demand for truck drivers overall.

"The company has been in decline for years. There was no way it was going to get fixed," he said. "Everybody I worked with was looking for other jobs anyway."

Because of his commercial driver's license, Lannan was lucky enough to quickly find a new job, getting a call with a job offer as a fuel truck driver Friday afternoon.

If Hostess can't make a profit after paying decent wages, they need to go out of business. Other corporations are raising prices and cutting portion size and turning very nice profits while paying good wages. Hostess tried to use the legal system to enforce their profits and they lost. Fuq them.

It is hard to believe Michigan is going to be a Right to Work state. The booming Michigan economy is the epitome of Union success in America.

You don't see Michigan based companies with a strong union presence ever taking TARP funds or facing difficulties.

Only if they can find a job that lets them work over 29 hours..

Hostess going under is being celebrated in New York. Bloomberg is toasting this success with a 15.99 ounce soft drink.

This is part of Obama's healthier America.

Those uppitty workers really pisz me off. We should crush the middle class, pay the po' folk $2 an hour (revoke minimum wage law) and give the profit to the CEO. No middle ground! One side wins it all, the other loses it all!

You need to re-read my post. I mentioned profit didn't I? It sounds like you are advocating slavery.

Rfenst is a lawyer, I believe they call it servitude. But what do I know, I'm a union lackey, that has no business sharing in the profits I made for the company I work for.

So you see no point when a business becomes unprofitable and should be shut down? Are you advocating welfare for corporations but arguing against unemployment benefits for individuals? Why do companies and their senior management get to remain unscathed by bad decisions but individuals have to "take accountability"?

I don't expect to win word games against a lawyer but let's say servitude instead of slavery then. If you take away those unemployment benefits you give corporations another tool to push pay downward. Should people accept substandard wages to allow senior management to raise their own pay and maximize profits, or should they let their families go hungry while they teach corporations a lesson? Not having to face such a **** choice is the reason governements can sometimes be useful. Unemployment gives them a chance to go look elsewhere. It doesn't last forever and it won't make them rich. Not everyone is a leach, some just fall on hard times (you know, like when bad decisions by senior management bankrupt a company).

I don't know how you came up with that but it's hilarious!


Good luck to the Hostess folks. May another carcinogenic junk food maker pick them up.

My wife is going shopping for Thanksgiving this eve and I am going with to see if there is any chance of getting some Twinkies or other hostess products. I don't care if they rot my brain out!

So, I take it you're a bankruptcy lawyer? I may need you.

you chose to pick apart my use of the word "slavery". It seems like a lawyer-like diversion to me.

You must be kidding. Bankruptcy is law and it's use is a legal tool. The company used it to get out of contracts and shed debt. It is welfare because it uses the government as authority to improve it's financial position at the expense of others.

Substandard wages will not keep food on the table and the roof over their heads. The guy in the article was being told to go from 34K to 25K. We can agree that using government benefits to keep them working might be a good idea but, how long would it be before you are complaining that people are taking advantage of that?

It is about unions in a way. They have become big business and are run the same way. Unfortunately, that includes the excesses and abuses. Those people didn't walk out on their jobs, they made a decision to force the company to improve its offer or shut down. The company chose to shut down. As I stated before, maybe that's good as the company may not have been profitable anymore. I am still baffled at how no responsibility is placed on management. It's a big shizzit sandwich and they should ALL have to take a bite.

Why is it "economically irrational" to let it die? If it's unprofitable, it should go. As for the "work harder and become CEO" argument: it simplifies a complex subject and even though it sounds good in an internet forum, it isn't realistic to think that I can become CEO.

More agreement: labor costs have fallen in the U.S.. What we probably disagree on whether or not it's a good thing. I am used to it as a fact and am adapting just fine.

I sense a lot of negativity towards corporations.
I don't recall this mentality before Obama took office.
Coincidence?

Hostess has filed three bankruptcies.


FYI.