Skip to comments.Shame On The Gluttonous Bakery Union Members, Blasted Twinkie Killers
Posted on 11/23/2012 6:13:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Drat! Im bummedsaddened by the news that the Hostess company, home of the Twinkie and other venerable sugary snacks, is shutting down.
Ill bet I havent eaten more than three or four Twinkies in the last 30 years, so the demise of Hostess doesnt adversely impact my lifestyle. Its just that, for baby boomers like me, the Twinkie has historic significance in popular culture. Being a kid in the 50s meant watching The Mickey Mouse Club and The Lone Ranger and snacking on Twinkies and Tootsie Rolls. Twinkies were as American as baseball. Now the company that makes them is facing liquidation. Why?
Because the bakery union wouldnt agree to the concessions needed to keep their employer afloat. Look, I dont wish lower wages on anybody, and having personally worked with great people in two unions (UAW and NEA), I have a natural sympathy for working men and women, but I cant respect a union that would kill off the Twinkie and their own jobs due to a false sense of pride.
Hostess lost $341 million last year. The money for the compensation that the bakery union wanted simply wasnt there. Even the Teamsters union, whom nobody would ever accuse of wimping out during contract talks, looked at Hostess books and acknowledged that the only way to keep the operation afloat would have been for workers to accept lower compensation.
The bakery union, however, would have none of it. They couldnt have been so stupid as to misunderstand the simple arithmetic of Hostess financial predicament, so one can only conclude that they went berserk with ideological madnessbetter to destroy the company than to make concessions to management seems to have been their cold-hearted calculus.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I’m starting to wonder who actually eats Twinkies any more.
Companies are already lining up to buy the name, formulas and production facilities.
Too bad for the striking workers they’ll likely be non-union.
Executives should be balanced in their rewards. If you own the company, then the skies the limit on what you reward yourself, but if you are just an executive, then excess is detrimental to your business.... well, excess can be detrimental if you are the owner, too, but that is your choice.
Is there a way to verify these numbers? ....wait, while reading back over this it doesn't make sense. Executives give themselves raises when the company is going out of business???? I think the image is lefty propaganda.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the union or its workers, at all. If you point a pistol at your foot, carefully look down the sight to make sure your foot's in the line of fire, and then pull the trigger, I say you pretty much got what you asked for. Idiots...
Not that I condone violence or what the Mob did -- allegedly -- but sometimes an 'attitude adjustment' is needed in certain situations. This was one of them (IMHO).
They have skills in high demand and can go anywhere.
The ‘union twinkies’ have few skills and are way overpaid for what they do.
After the Wall Street Journal wrote an article on the increases, those same executives cut their salaries to $1. This is what pisses me off about Snopes, which is a VERY left-leaning source of anything: They say the article is true, but then go on to say all the raises were given back and salaries reduced to $1. How can Snopes, with a straight face, say the article about executive pay raises is true, and then report they were recanted?
Moral: Don't trust Snopes for anything.
Self serving jerkoffs.
They screwed themselves and about 9000 other people who will never, ever see their job come back.
The incident is fresh, recent. Time is required to plan and execute retaliation. The Baker’s Union chief might still be found trussed and dead in a car trunk.
Unlike Jimmy Hoffa, he will be found to assure the message is delivered.
It wasn’t the “18,000 workers” that made Hostess close its doors. It was only around 5000 stubborn union members that killed the company and made the decision for the other 13,000.
Looks like lefty propaganda to me, too.
Even if the bosses gave themselves raises the fact remains that even if the bosses worked for free they would still have to take a cut.
Yes, it is disgusting that CEO etc can loot money but it’s no excuse to cut your own leg off.
Don’t be surprised if the federal government under Obammie the Commie step in and nationalize this company as a first step to nationalizing all food production.
“We must save the jobs of those good folks. And it’s an important American tradition.”
We will then see the ultimate use of propaganda as MoocherShelle, while pointing out which weeds someone needs to pull out of her “micro-farm,” tells the American people, “Yes, we need to eat healthier. But we all need a little treat in our lives. We need to nationalize the Twinkie company to ensure those treats are available to everyone.”
So, a failing company’s execs were taking huge bonuses while a company crashed and because they were exposed and changed their policy, I should laud the heads of the company? Great logic.
By the way, the company failed because the free market works. Even those lamenting the demise admit that they don’t even eat the product, yet they view this as a bad thing for America. Why?
Companies come, companies go, it has always been thus.
I take anything from snopes with a grain of salt.
” Too bad for the striking workers theyll likely be non-union.”
Too bad for the striking workers. They’ll likely not be hired by any new owners. The new owners might not want to hire any of them at all.
Well, they won’t be glutting much longer....
BTW, I was being facetious.
No...I got that. I just wanted to jump onto the point you made.
Nothing strange about that. No more strange than the lefty administration giving themselves tons of money while going under.
First, no one defines “executives”. Second, no one mentions that the Union President makes $264K / year. Third, few mention that workers have decertified this union left and right for the past ten years, dropping membership drastically. Plus, no one mentions that the poor “workers” average $84K /year.
Protest their own unions over that,they protest everything else. just wondering.
Correct. Creative Destruction.
If it is not allowed to happen, we end up with the Soviet Union style of life and collapse.
The message will be loud and clear: Don't F with Teamster's jobs. And if I was this Baker Union Guy I'd already be hiding out.
Sounds like one of those things put out by the brainless, 99% goons living in mom and dad’s basement.
“It wasnt the 18,000 workers that made Hostess close its doors. It was only around 5000 stubborn union members that killed the company and made the decision for the other 13,000.”
From what I have read, you are picking on the wrong union. The Teamsters wanted the deal because 8% off of their $130k a year “salaries” for driving the delivery trucks was a pittance. The Bakers were just the pond scum who worked for low wages at the bakeries themselves. And check out the Teamsters “work rules” which featherbedded their piece of the labor pie.
As I've said before:I'd like to take this time to wish all the union thugs and their famalies that killed Twinkies a very Merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.