Goodbye Twinkies? +Quote on "Entitlement Society"

[Tom]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

18k out of a job.

Something I noticed in an article this morning

"Only 1/3 are members of a Union"

I read that the other 2/3'rds refused to cross the picket line

This is going to be a shitty weekend for some

Yes, for the TAXPAYERS who have to carry those worthless ares who refused to go to work and pay their own way - yet again. No unemployment should EVER be allowed in cases like this. There is no reason for thses leeches to get one dollar from anyone else -- they had a chance to keep the jobs and were too greedy. Now let them pay the price.

My hope is more than a few will lose their homes. Tough love is needed.

[pandy]

CNBC just interviewed the CEO of Hostess. He said that Ripplewood, which is the private equity company involved, has sunk 30 million into the company trying to fix it. He said that 30% of the employees refused to accept the offer which will put 18,500 people out of work. He also said that the company agreed as part of the deal to improve working conditions. The majority of these workers will be lucky to find a job in this economy let alone one as good as this. The plan now is to sell the brands.

[ArlJim78]

the brands are iconic and will survive.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes, for the TAXPAYERS who have to carry those worthless ares who refused to go to work and pay their own way - yet again. No unemployment should EVER be allowed in cases like this. There is no reason for thses leeches to get one dollar from anyone else -- they had a chance to keep the jobs and were too greedy. Now let them pay the price.

My hope is more than a few will lose their homes. Tough love is needed.

I agree the Union should have to support these slugs. Since it's their call to trashcan the company.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

the brands are iconic and will survive.

Yep China will snag em' up... sent a plant up in Mexico using Stimulus Money that Ob's gave them... Woo hoo more imports.

[pandy]

Little Debbie and Tastykake are still in business and both bake their products here in the USA. I'm sure they will be interested in the brand names.

[pandy]

I don't know if you've seen the reports on Twinkie ingredients. One guy wrote a book on it. I don't think this helped sales.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/22106/...ients-revealed

[Tom]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

Yep China will snag em' up...

Trinkies....mmmm mmmm mmmm!

[Robert Fischer]

The company was 100% at fault here.
The union did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

It's called Darwinism. If some P.O.S. company can't stay competitive and continue to pay their Executives and still pay off their Debts well enough that they don't have to finagle through Chapter 11 and liquidation without significant pay-cuts to the employees, that is 100% on the COMPANY.

Is there blind hate because this company has had enough media impact to make the garbage they sell "an iconic American product" ?? Or is there blind hide because anything associated with unions makes us think of corrupt labor practices??

I don't get it.

[Robert Fischer]

It seems like Hostess has some serious entitlement issues.

They think they should be ENTITLED to suck the company dry, rack up debt, pay themselves and their executives, and enter into chapter 11 bankruptcy???

If you just look at the sequence of events without the propaganda, it looks an awful lot like they started this whole process in the beginning with the following INTENT:
1. get as much money out knowing that:

• a. we'll pay for it w/ pay/pension cuts or

• b. take advantage of Liquidation

[Tom]

No, the real thieves here are the workers who walked away from a job and now expect the tax payers to take care of them.

The company was willing to proved jobs - the leeches chose not to take them.

They should not get on penny of unemployment.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, the real thieves here are the workers who walked away from a job and now expect the tax payers to take care of them.

The company was willing to proved jobs - the leeches chose not to take them.

They should not get on penny of unemployment.

this is a legal issue.

What does the law say?

I know that if these employees had simply quit, rather than accept pay and pension cuts - there would not be unemployment benefits.

However in a situation like this, where the company liquidates, the employees are eligible for unemployment benefits.

I would also assume that these employees had a contract regarding their pensions and their salaries.
This would prevent the company from legally changing the pay / cutting the pensions without a new contract.

Refusal to accept a new contract isn't grounds for denying unemployment benefits.

[Tom]

Refusal to accept a new contract isn't grounds for denying unemployment benefits.

It should be.

*sing*

Look for the Union Label,
Worn by those who aren't quite stable

[Robert Fischer]

^^
those chocolate iced cupcakes will be missed

[JustRalph]

I suppose I can do a search and find your past posts against the auto bailout by Obama then?

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The company was 100% at fault here.
The union did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

It's called Darwinism. If some P.O.S. company can't stay competitive and continue to pay their Executives and still pay off their Debts well enough that they don't have to finagle through Chapter 11 and liquidation without significant pay-cuts to the employees, that is 100% on the COMPANY.

Is there blind hate because this company has had enough media impact to make the garbage they sell "an iconic American product" ?? Or is there blind hide because anything associated with unions makes us think of corrupt labor practices??

I don't get it.