Queen Michael:
Oh, come on. I've never gotten an opportunity to try one!

They really are not very good...

I believe people praise them more as a joke then as a serious indication of their ediblity.

----
and i agree with raiyan that people blaming the union here are being stupid...

Raiyan 1.0:
snip

Gentlemen, I suggest you take a look at this article.

First of all, it was the management's failure make their brand more relevant in today's market. The company had been on a decline for years. When the company entered bankruptcy, the Union agreed to $150 million annual givebacks. Pensions and healthcare were cut as well, with labor's total loss equaling $110 million annually. Yet when the company was bought by Ripplewood, unions did not get a place on the board. By making concessions, the union was being a major investor without representation. They trusted Ripplewood to turn things around, but the new management drove the whole thing to the ground. They did not launch any new product and revenues kept going down.

When Hostess lost another $341 million in 2011, the workers were again pushed to have their salary and benifit cut down by 30%. Meanwhile, the CEO who drove the company into bankruptcy got a pay raise. A previous failed chief executive, Brian J. Driscoll, was pushed out, but only after the board tripled his pay package to $2.55 million.

Management ordered the company to stop contributing to the union pension funds, ignoring their obligations under collective bargaining agreements. They demanded a new round of concessions, which would have doubled insurance premiums, negated all pension obligations, and slashed pay by 27 to 32 percent. Meanwhile, while blaming the workers for the collapse, the CEO asked a bankruptcy judge permission to pay executives $1.75 million in bonuses to oversee the dissolution of the company (and 18,000-plus union jobs). And that's after a round of executive pay raises earlier this year.

14-year Hostess bakery veteran:
Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in five years if I took their offer. It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.

Are you really surprised that 92 percent of them voted against accepting the cuts?

Jake Blumgart:
In a healthier and more just labor system, the Hostess crisis would be seen as the decline of a moribund and dreadfully mismanaged company, not a symptom of organized labor's malaise.

That is an enlightening article. There is a lot of good information in there when you sift through the rhetoric. I still stand by what I said in the CEO salary raise as being a red herring. The truth is, I still find the source a bit hard to swallow, but that is just my preference. Anything attached to the Huffington Post, blech. As a news source they are overtly left (which was very apparent) and I can't stand any of the bi-partisan slap fighting that occurs in this country. the Huffington Post is the left version of Fox News and I avoid them like the plague as well. I mean, if you look at the quick links on the right, it talks about Chris Christy GOP status in question because of response to Hurricane Sandy, and that is simply not true. As a native New Jersey resident I know he took guff for being civilized and thanking to President Obama when he came to the state, but he just told all the right wing douches that this is more important than the election or petty party politics (at least to new jersey). But this actually made him more popular when everything was said and done. And I'm on a tangent.

The facts in there seem good, the only thing I haven't been able to successfully corroborate is the pay cuts from the 2004-2009 bankruptcy. I found lots of references to them laying off 10,000 workers, closing 9 baking factories out of 300, and closing outlet stores (who the hell needs a Hostess store? That is the most ridiculous shit I have ever seen).

Thanks for the heads up man, always good to see the other side of the story.

Baresark:
hell of a snip

So then in this particular case, would it be fair to say that the causes were primarily poor and exploitative management of the company's assets with the union strike serving as the final nail in the coffin?

Baresark:

Thanks for the heads up man, always good to see the other side of the story.

No problem. I must say I'm quite impressed at how and Olas managed to keep up a conversation for several pages without descending to name-calling. Rare trait on the internet these days.

There is a lot of good information in there when you sift through the rhetoric. I still stand by what I said in the CEO salary raise as being a red herring.

I agree that their salaries are a drop in the water compared to the company's revenues and losses, but I still think this part of the corporate culture should be highlighted, because they're shifting their blame on others and have created a culture where they have to face no consequences. Like how those bastards at Goldman Sachs can run several countries into the ground and still get away with millions. Or how certain large businesses are trying to set up a plutocracy.

The truth is, I still find the source a bit hard to swallow, but that is just my preference. Anything attached to the Huffington Post, blech. As a news source they are overtly left (which was very apparent) and I can't stand any of the bi-partisan slap fighting that occurs in this country. the Huffington Post is the left version of Fox News and I avoid them like the plague as well. I mean, if you look at the quick links on the right, it talks about Chris Christy GOP status in question because of response to Hurricane Sandy, and that is simply not true. As a native New Jersey resident I know he took guff for being civilized and thanking to President Obama when he came to the state, but he just told all the right wing douches that this is more important than the election or petty party politics (at least to new jersey). But this actually made him more popular when everything was said and done. And I'm on a tangent.

Huh, I had no idea that Salon was affiliated with Huffington Post. And while Salon can be quite annoyingly leftist (like posting about every single Sarah Pallin faux pas way after she became irrelevant), I would say they're somewhat balanced in their writing. Especially the Glenn Greenwald articles, who extensively attacked Obama's policies that infringed on civil rights.

At any rate, I seem to have missed the Chris Christy article you mention. As far as I've seen, Salon is pretty positive when portraying him as a leader, even if they disagree with some of his policies. Just some articles with his tag:

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/chris_christie_i_dont_give_a_damn_about_election_day/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/chris_christie_praises_obamas_storm_response/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/why_mitt_romney_is_no_chris_christie/
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/06/obama_and_christie_its_alright_to_cry/
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/a_republicans_rare_chance_to_be_a_real_leader/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/chris_christie_democratic_hero/

CardinalPiggles:
Here America , try this instead;

o.0

fuck a duck dood ....find a long enough link for that image

*original thought derailed by link length*

OT: SAVE THE TWINKIE!! or at the very least, the Cupcake, fucken love my some chocolate

Devoneaux:

Baresark:
hell of a snip

So then in this particular case, would it be fair to say that the causes were primarily poor and exploitative management of the company's assets with the union strike serving as the final nail in the coffin?

Oh yeah, I conceded that point a bit ago. The primary cause of the woes from moment one was poor management. But until I read Raiyan's post, I didn't have all the facts as people in general have glossed over the previous financial woes of the company. They never really recovered from that.

Raiyan 1.0:
snip

Yeah man, I thoroughly enjoy a friendly debate. And I despise when they turn into bitter name calling. At that point it's not a debate, it's a slap fight. Also, I find you have to pick and choose the information in a lot of articles, even from center of the isle news sources. Fox has some good stuff, but it's usually hidden behind walls of ultra right crap. Same thing for the Huffington Post but you need to sift through the ultra left crud. And by sift I don't mean pick and choose so much as avoid all the mention of left or right wing, watch out for rhetorical or emotional based statements, and generally only worry about what is absolute fact.

Treblaine:
Englishman here, who has never even seen a Twinkie. But I know so much of them. I remember my earliest heard reference to them, it was in the movie Die Hard, John McClain gasping as if shot when he eats a "prehistoric twinkie".

It's a piece of Americana that I'd hate to see go.

Heh, Americana killed by a facet of near-Americana industrialism.
By that, I mean "Unions".

No great loss to me. I think I've had maybe 4 Twinkies in my entire life.

Atmos Duality:

Treblaine:
Englishman here, who has never even seen a Twinkie. But I know so much of them. I remember my earliest heard reference to them, it was in the movie Die Hard, John McClain gasping as if shot when he eats a "prehistoric twinkie".

It's a piece of Americana that I'd hate to see go.

Heh, Americana killed by a facet of near-Americana industrialism.
By that, I mean "Unions".

No great loss to me. I think I've had maybe 4 Twinkies in my entire life.

Hey, America didn't invent unions and this is the impression we get on this side of the Atlantic of where unions fit in "the american way":

Mmmmmm, half assed twinkies *Guuuuuaaahhhhh*

Therumancer:

Well, at the extreme I'd say Unions actually need to devolve. The core of the power of a union is the threat of violence,

Please shut up before you give Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck more talking points for how anything other than neo-conservative establishment of america is so evil anything must be done to stop it.

Not that they pay particular attention to you, but in general they rant about totalitarian conspiracies and call for "violent revolution" when it's a fantasy threat. But even idle talk of mob violence is enough to "prove" they were right all along.

Treblaine:

Hey, America didn't invent unions and this is the impression we get on this side of the Atlantic of where unions fit in "the american way":
Mmmmmm, half assed twinkies *Guuuuuaaahhhhh*

Maybe not invent them, but they were certainly needed when they were invented.
It changed our perspective on the nature, and value of labor.

Today, yeah. They're basically an excuse to half-ass the job, at best, and organized crime rings at worst.

Sonic Doctor:

This is the type of place one doesn't need to be going to make points about such matters. The liberal bias is so thick that I wouldn't be able to find a thing to cut into it to find an unbiased remark. Heck, they even have a "follow Obama" link.

I already mentioned in my post that I don't take Salon at face value all the time. The only reason I even used to read the site regularly was because of Glenn Greenwald. And while you mention they have an option to 'follow' the president, that never stopped them from piling on the president's policies.

... especially the parts that make it out that employers could easily keep all their employees even with the extra money that they have to shell out when the Obamacare payments will become mandatory.

Did you read the article? Look at the Papa Jones example. He's bitching that he has to increase the price of each pizza by 4 pence, so that all of his employees are insured, not just the 1/3 that is now.

Therumancer:

Treblaine:

Therumancer:

Well, at the extreme I'd say Unions actually need to devolve. The core of the power of a union is the threat of violence,

Please shut up before you give Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck more talking points for how anything other than neo-conservative establishment of america is so evil anything must be done to stop it.

Not that they pay particular attention to you, but in general they rant about totalitarian conspiracies and call for "violent revolution" when it's a fantasy threat. But even idle talk of mob violence is enough to "prove" they were right all along.

Well understand that I happen to be far more right wing than left when you get down to it.

That said, I'm not going to "shut up" as this is exactly what needs to be said in this arena right now. In this case overly greedy business owners, bankers, etc... should be concerned, the fact that they can safely ignore the opposition as long as it works within a system they more or less control is exactly the point.

To be frank, I think your merely ignorant. You might want to read back to the history of unions, how they got started, what happened when they did, and how they wound up deriving their power. Notice the differance between the techniques then, and what you see now.

I'll agree, things CAN go too far, not handled correctly what I'm talking about can turn into a full fledged, communist-type workers rebellion, which is generally a bad idea. I do however believe that it can be pushed to a certain level and then stopped, leading to a sort of balance we used to have in this country, again, you really should read up on the subject, I have done so rather extensively.

Of course also understand, that not many people have been screwed by an employer as totally as I have (though it has happened, and some people have gotten it worse). I know from trying to use the system that it simply does not work in the current state, and with no fear of the workers there is no reason for the system being made to work, which is why it doesn't happen. People are given just enough hope that things might change without serious action to keep them flapping their gums, while things continue to get worse. I'm smart enough to realize however that one guy employing violence is just a psycho who won't even gets his reasons as just as they might be adequetly covered in the media. Thousands or tens of thousands of people acting in concert, well that's something else entirely.

I also understand that the issue isn't entirely domestic, in the final equasion it all comes down to international business and trade, the cost at which various nations can produce goods and services in relation to others, IP and Copyright laws, and similar things. While the worker mistreatment in the US goes too far on it's own, you cannot totally disregard the point that nations violating IPs, Patents, and Copyrights, and producing with sweatshop labour cause a lot of the problems because the more workers get paid the higher the cost to produce goods, and the more expensive they are. To compete with that on an even keel you need to pretty much turn your own production into sweatshop labour and produce as cheaply, hence the massive reductions in worker benefits here in the US in order to compete. At the end of the day the nations doing this kind of thing, do it for their own benefit and the money it makes them, they are not going to stop just because you ask them and pretty much see what they have collapse, as a result it becomes an "us or them" equasion and the need to make them stop which basically means war and the destruction of the problem production. As the old maxim goes "Free Trade Means He With The Biggest Guns Trades Freely" a portion of the USA's plight is that we've become too idealistic and forgotten the basics.

You might not LIKE what I'm saying, but it happens to be true. I understand the entire "do nothing and hope it goes away" and "peace at any price" points of view, but sadly that's not practical. Neither foreign nations, or corrupt businessmen are going to change for our benefit or out of the goodness of their heards. The system cannot effectively regulate those who have taken control of it either. The result is to force change, as we've seen through history.

I'll defend capitolism, big business, and the rights of the rich to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the ends of the earth, and have done so in the past, but I also believe these things need to be balanced to a degree. I believe things like unions, and a strong military prescence enforcing our business interests, are a bit part of that. For either to work people have to respect them, and that includes displays of power, and a degree of fear. When businesses don't fear the unions because they have become entirely bureaucratic on the issues that matter (and the big businesses control the system) that's an issue. You want big business to WANT the system to work for fair mediation and to negotiate to find solutions both sides can work with, for that there needs to be some parity, and when one side holds the money the other needs, that parity has to come from threat of force. It's not nice, but if some employer is concerned that he's going to see his family lynched if he pushes too far (and screws the families of many, many other people) he's going to be a bit wary of deciding he wants to cut benefits, engage in mass layoffs, and how hard he's going to squeeze the workers for his profits. The world sucks, people suck, this is simply the sucktastic way things work. If we didn't suck so much it wouldn't be nessicary. People have many good aspects and a lot of potential, but face it, without a lot of balances in place we tend to screw each other over.

Okay, maybe "shut up" was the wrong way to phrase it, how about: please for the love of all that is good, don't preach that practice, I beg of you.

Authoritarian establishment orders THRIVE on the threat of violence - even if only perceived and not actual - to justify their controls.

I emplore you, take the path of non-violence, and never be the one to strike the first blow, always seek a peaceful path rather than the quickest one to violence. Choosing violence as your first principal is the best propaganda you can give your opponents and easiest way to divide your cause and lose allies. And it is unity and unanimous alliance that is the DEFINING strength of unions.

Violence has always been the establishment's vice, they legally hold a de-facto monopoly on the use of force.

Te very presence and activity of Pinkerton agents dealing out beatings should have galvanised all public will against unions but instead the public turned against them as the Unions were the ones who started the violence and Pinkertons were seen as the rescuers from mobs of thugs.

Are you aware of Unions outside the united states? What about other popular organisations against minority holders of power, whether it be power in industry or government.

You cannot restrain a mob, once you've authorised violence you've crossed the rubicon, the path of escalation is inexorable as there will be a response to that violence that will lead to spiralling escalation. You need to absolutely commit from the start to non-violence that violence is not your method for achieving anything but that violence is an aspect of the establishment that YOU will exploit in them.

The problem with violence is it doesn't adequately reflect the will of the masses in the same way that refusing to work does.

One person can kill a man. It in itself says nothing of the workers as a whole.

But when all the workers in solidarity refuse to hold up their end of the deal (working) because the bosses didn't hold up their end (paying them their due in salary/healthcare/etc)

There is something evocatively fair in that, that the workers aren't doing their job because the boss isn't doing his/her job. And all the workers doing all of that together sends such a strong and unambiguous message that the industrialists don't hold all the cards, the boss cannot fire everyone at once.

But lynching, that proves nothing but that a handful of people can tie a rope. If the workers were completely satisfied with their employment arrangement but some psycho kills the boss anyway, what does that prove?

Violence proves nothing. It's not a negotiation tactic. Resorting to premeditated violence is an unconscionable act of desperation.

Baldr:

Best conspiracy theory: Obama had his union goons create the strike so there would be less junk food in the country.

That's amazing, it totally ignores the explosion in healthy trends that account for why this company isn't as profitable as it was 30 years ago.

Daystar Clarion:
Maybe you can get around to making something actually made out of food now, huh America? :D

Actually, we have been, that's why this company is bankrupt, because we're busy eating actual food instead of snack-cakes.

The joys of being UK based, I had to google Twinkies to even understand what they are and I don't think I missed much. I'm pretty sure Fox will pin this one on Obama.

it may be because i am not an american but i seriously do not see why this is relevant to the escapist...and are there not a ton of other sweets manufacturers? and what kind of company is going to have success by convincing people to put ding dongs and ho hos into their mouths?

and finally, does anyone honestly care? besides the employees naturally, but does anyone in the community actually care?