Twinkies

ki0ho · Nov 18, 2012

From what I read the twinkies hav been saved....it looks like aMex million aire might soon own them and the brand....another thing made better in mexico!!!!!!!!!!!! Maby it is time to learn to speek espanyo!!!!!!!!!! Might be a good Idea to move all the gun manufacturing down there and then flood the southern US border with a program called SLOW and EASY...... :yum:

If nothing else Holder would no doubt not learn of it till say......2095 or around there....certinly not before a couple of Mexican border agents got killed!!!!!!!! or the darned conservs stuck their noses in and messed up a good thing!!!!!!!! :yum:

FrancSevin · Nov 18, 2012

ki0ho said:
From what I read the twinkies hav been saved....it looks like aMex million aire might soon own them and the brand....another thing made better in mexico!!!!!!!!!!!! Maby it is time to learn to speek espanyo!!!!!!!!!! Might be a good Idea to move all the gun manufacturing down there and then flood the southern US border with a program called SLOW and EASY...... If nothing else Holder would no doubt not learn of it till say......2095 or around there....certinly not before a couple of Mexican border agents got killed!!!!!!!! or the darned conservs stuck their noses in and messed up a good thing!!!!!!!!

Good news if it is true.

I don't know about your Mexican millionaire connection. Ithought it would be Bimbo, a huge Mexican bakery conglomerate. That said, there are plenty of suitors who will be salivating in the New York US bankruptc court on Monday.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/twinkies_likely_to_survice_hostess_JNuZs4P9cKN4rG8mcV0nYM

This is the normal free enterprise process when an otherwise good product like Hostess/Wonderbread (or General Motors Cheverolet, Buick, Cadillac) goes on the bankruptcy auction block because of a badly functionaing business model. Let us hope for the viability of the Twinkie, that Obama doesn't attempt to save it.

ki0ho · Nov 18, 2012

Bimbo was the company spoke of and they gave the name of the person who Im guessing is the co...but I dont remember it now...should be in the news in the morning or maby tonight...

pixie · Nov 19, 2012

http://www.bimbobakeriesusa.com

They already own Sara Lee, Entemann's and several other brands you'll recognize with bakeries in the US.

squerly · Nov 19, 2012

Per Fox News, Twinkie were saved but 18,500 (union) jobs lost. Bad time of year to loose your job.

FrancSevin · Nov 19, 2012

As I had indicated in another thread, Grupa Bimbo was the most likely entity totake over as their product line was veridical with Hostess and Wonder.

18,500 union jobs lost yes. But 18,000 new opprortunities will be opened because they still have to have somebody stuff thoseTwinkies. Last Time I was at the bakery, Hostess Fruit Pies are still placed into the packaging line by hand.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

Well, they did not make much to start with, they had no raises for 5 years and made concessions. Maybe they figrued it was time to hunt a real job.

squerly said:
Per Fox News, Twinkie were saved but 18,500 (union) jobs lost. Bad time of year to loose your job.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

Course there is another side to the story.

"The crisis facing Hostess Brands is the result of nearly a decade of financial and operational mismanagement that resulted in two bankruptcies, mountains of debt, declining sales and lost market share," the union said. "The Wall Street investors who took over the company after the last bankruptcy attempted to resolve the mess by attacking the company’s most valuable asset -- its workers."

http://www.teamster.org/industry/bakery-laundry/news

Kane · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
Well, they did not make much to start with, they had no raises for 5 years and made concessions. Maybe they figrued it was time to hunt a real job.

Funny way to rationalize it. But mak2, where's your liberal compassion? Maybe those 18,000 folks have skill sets that limit them to stuffing Twinkies, nothing more ... just the kind of folks that vote for Obama.

Now they'll have to go on unemployment. For 99 weeks. Almost two years. While Mexicans stuff Twinkies for less.

Well done.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

I knew there was a bit more to this story. Nothing funny about it.

Get rid of all them silly unions we could get the wages down to China level if we coudl just get a good Republican presidnt. My goodness those Obama voters are stupid.

Kane said:
Funny way to rationalize it. But mak2, where's your liberal compassion? Maybe those 18,000 folks have skill sets that limit them to stuffing Twinkies, nothing more ... just the kind of folks that vote for Obama.

Now they'll have to go on unemployment. For 99 weeks. Almost two years. While Mexicans stuff Twinkies for less.

Well done.

Melensdad · Nov 19, 2012

I think the Hostess problem is a problem with their BUSINESS MODEL. Simply put its out of date.

They have a FRESH BAKED/FRESH DELIVERY business model. While that is pretty much required for BREAD, it is not needed for SNACK FOOD.

The business model is VERY EXPENSIVE and VERY LABOR INTENSIVE. Most of the competitors to Hostess are baking in a central bakery, freezing the snacks, shipping to consolidation warehouses, which then deliver to the retail store. The retail store then has 'stockers' who fill the shelves. Fruit pies typically sell for 50% to 70% LESS than the Hostess brand, which requires dozens of bakeries, fleets of trucks, and scores of delivery personel who not only deliver but also stock the store shelves. In this age that is a model for failure.

It should be noted that while MOST bread is now delivered fresh, there are several ultra-premium brands that are now shipped frozen using the thaw & sell model that was pioneered by the snack cake food lines.

The Hostess business model requires 18,500 workers. A thaw & sell model would require only a SMALL FRACTION of that number, perhaps 3500 workers.

Kane · Nov 19, 2012

Melensdad said:
I think the Hostess problem is a problem with their BUSINESS MODEL. Simply put its out of date.

They have a FRESH BAKED/FRESH DELIVERY business model. While that is pretty much required for BREAD, it is not needed for SNACK FOOD.

The business model is VERY EXPENSIVE and VERY LABOR INTENSIVE. Most of the competitors to Hostess are baking in a central bakery, freezing the snacks, shipping to consolidation warehouses, which then deliver to the retail store. The retail store then has 'stockers' who fill the shelves. Fruit pies typically sell for 50% to 70% LESS than the Hostess brand, which requires dozens of bakeries, fleets of trucks, and scores of delivery personel who not only deliver but also stock the store shelves. In this age that is a model for failure.

It should be noted that while MOST bread is now delivered fresh, there are several ultra-premium brands that are now shipped frozen using the thaw & sell model that was pioneered by the snack cake food lines.

The Hostess business model requires 18,500 workers. A thaw & sell model would require only a SMALL FRACTION of that number, perhaps 3500 workers.

I may be wrong, but the union demands that Hostess use this method of doing business:

the Hostess brand, which requires dozens of bakeries, fleets of trucks, and scores of delivery personel who not only deliver but also stock the store shelves. In this age that is a model for failure.

Up to and including using separate trucks: one for bread and another one for Twinkies.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

So the union forced them to poorly manage their company? I know the seperate truck thing is not true, at least here.

Kane said:
I may be wrong, but the union demands that Hostess use this method of doing business:

Up to and including using separate trucks: one for bread and another one for Twinkies.

Kane · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
So the union forced them to poorly manage their company? I know the seperate truck thing is not true, at least here.

Hostess began in 1930 as Interstate Baking Company in Kansas City, Missouri. Over the years, it acquired numerous other baking companies, and in doing so, finds itself today with 372 different union contracts. And, none of those unions are willing to give up their hold on Hostess.

Hostess has a trove of complex labor rules that the company deems inefficient. In some instances, work rules mandate that separate trucks must deliver bread and cake products. Sometimes separate workers must load the trucks and additional workers must make final deliveries once a truck arrives at a supermarket.

from the Wall Street Journal

Surprise! The bakers union falls under the skirt of -- surprise! -- the Teamsters.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

I have not read about these rules. Generally "complex labor rules" is the company's way of disparging safety rules. You mean some load the trucks and others deliver? Wut? Ok I will look it up.

Kane · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
I have not read about these rules. Generally "complex labor rules" is the company's way of disparging safety rules. You mean some load the trucks and others deliver? Wut? Ok I will look it up.

Just click the link in my post above; from the reputable WSJ. The union(s) are exactly the reason the Twinkie is dead.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

Ok the Wall Street journal pretty much blames the fall of Hostess on the Unions. Wow.

Probably archaic management refusing to change is also a factor. I hear ding dong sells were down too, damn I loved them things frozen.

http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess

FrancSevin · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
Course there is another side to the story.

"The crisis facing Hostess Brands is the result of nearly a decade of financial and operational mismanagement that resulted in two bankruptcies, mountains of debt, declining sales and lost market share," the union said. "The Wall Street investors who took over the company after the last bankruptcy attempted to resolve the mess by attacking the company’s most valuable asset -- its workers."

http://www.teamster.org/industry/bakery-laundry/news

Yeah, that's the Union's side of the story.

Sounds exactly likethe GM scenario.

Work rules made it difficult to be effecient..No way to streamline deliveries of the product.

When I did service calls on equipment, two mechanics watched as I worked. They got paid, and I got paid to do the work they were originaly paid to do.

Bad business model and the Union wouldn't budge.

I had the same union at our R&F Red Cross brand pasta factory. Pasta was packaged on 80 year old machines that were unsafe and unsanitary. So we bought all new lines. Union guys would not install them because they would put out more lbs per worker. The busdiness was growing so no one would have lost their job, just more production and we could compete against the non union plant across town.
But, the union insisted on followng the old work rules and would not negotiate. The work rules created so much inefficiencies the owners finally thew in the towel.

Melensdad · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
So the union forced them to poorly manage their company?

If its true it would not be the first time. The UAW has prevented Ford from building factories here in the US that they claim have "too much" automation. Its common practice by unions to protect jobs, that is their main function, they will strike to protect jobs. So it would not surprise me if they forced Hostess to maintain a totally outdated business model.

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

What I read the concessions demanded this time would degrade these jobs to the level of a walmart greeter. I expected for this fourm to be 100% anti union, but just out of curiosity, how much concessions would you think is reasonable? I beleive tehy wanted them to give up 8% more and lose $3 per 100 of their retirement. How much to you want American workers to give up?

Melensdad · Nov 19, 2012

mak2 said:
What I read the concessions demanded this time would degrade these jobs to the level of a walmart greeter. I expected for this fourm to be 100% anti union, but just out of curiosity, how much concessions would you think is reasonable? I beleive tehy wanted them to give up 8% more and lose $3 per 100 of their retirement. How much to you want American workers to give up?

Believe it or not, I'm not totally anti-union. I have no problems with PRIVATE SECTOR unions but I am 100% against PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions.

As for the contract, the BANKRUPTCY JUDGE was the one who ordered the 8% cut, then gave the back 3% then next year and then 1% each year thereafter. It was a trade off for still having a job.

On the other hand, if the company would follow a FROZEN delivery model, then they could afford to pay the workers their current (former) rate, it would just mean that roughly 15,000 people would be out of jobs. The only snack food bakeries that I know of that are still operating in the solid black are using the frozen model. I know of a couple, similar to Hostess, that are also teetering on the edge of solvency.

REDDOGTWO · Nov 19, 2012

I believe that it was both a problem on the union and management. Management needs labor and labor needs management. Both have to get into the 21st century and find ways to get the costs down in a proactive way.

Melensdad · Nov 19, 2012

ki0ho · Nov 19, 2012

REDDOGTWO said:
I believe that it was both a problem on the union and management. Management needs labor and labor needs management. Both have to get into the 21st century and find ways to get the costs down in a proactive way.

+ 1 here......maby if we can get trumka and a few others to go on over to china..this country can go back to a normal model.......O-slimmy would shurly follow :wink:

mak2 · Nov 19, 2012

I have never been too crazy about the union and usually not about management. I have never derived much from the union until recently when a member of management went nutso on me, it was nice to have the union around then, she was kinda slam dunked. She wsa so far off base it probably did not really matter...But yea, I think both groups should update their practices and become more synergistic instead of an advasarial sort of relationship. It does seem to me the Republicans would be a bit happier if American workers wages were reduced to more of a third world level.

REDDOGTWO said:
I believe that it was both a problem on the union and management. Management needs labor and labor needs management. Both have to get into the 21st century and find ways to get the costs down in a proactive way.

FrancSevin · Nov 19, 2012

REDDOGTWO said:
I believe that it was both a problem on the union and management. Management needs labor and labor needs management. Both have to get into the 21st century and find ways to get the costs down in a proactive way.

I wish it were just that easy. In most cases involving unions, there are contracts which are based on the concept that the Company will continue to operate. Forever. It is sometimes impossible for the management to implement new proceedures, new methods and new equipment without the union basicaly negating any benefit which might be derived from the upgrades.

I'm not talking about lazy workers or overdemanding unions, just a stubborness to adapt the business to the changing needs of the marketplace and the needs of the Company to meet those changes and compete. When management or theunion, obstruct such changes, the business model cannot compete withentities that do. Be they Union or non union.

So often, the only strategy for managment is to bring the company to the edge and file for bankruptcy. At which point the Union goes to court and something like the saga of the Twinkie evolves.

How many time must we see this before both sides realize it is a poor methodolgy for operating a successful business?

squerly · Nov 19, 2012

Melensdad said:
Believe it or not, I'm not totally anti-union.

I am.

Bamby · Nov 19, 2012

Well it does appear that the Hostess executives did their part by leading with a nice example.

"While the company was filing for bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent.

Over the past eight years since the first Hostess bankruptcy, BCTGM members have watched as money from previous concessions that was supposed to go towards capital investment, product development, plant improvement and new equipment, was squandered in executive bonuses, payouts to Wall Street investors and payments to high-priced attorneys and consultants. BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256."

http://www.nationofchange.org/hostess-blames-union-bankruptcy-after-tripling-ceo-s-pay-1353255416

Or:

Hostess is bankrupt … again

Caught in a fight between labor and hedge funds, the baker may finally have reached its expiration date.

I'm not stating the employees are really innocent victims, but damn management played a big part in this fiasco too.. :hammer:

Kane · Nov 19, 2012

Melensdad said:
Believe it or not, I'm not totally anti-union. I have no problems with PRIVATE SECTOR unions but I am 100% against PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions.

As for the contract, the BANKRUPTCY JUDGE was the one who ordered the 8% cut, then gave the back 3% then next year and then 1% each year thereafter. It was a trade off for still having a job.

On the other hand, if the company would follow a FROZEN delivery model, then they could afford to pay the workers their current (former) rate, it would just mean that roughly 15,000 people would be out of jobs. The only snack food bakeries that I know of that are still operating in the solid black are using the frozen model. I know of a couple, similar to Hostess, that are also teetering on the edge of solvency.

Again, melensdad, the work rules (and methods) have been dictated by the unions, and are particularly damning by the Teamsters of all people. Hostess does not choose to work inefficiently, the union does, all in the false premise that they are protecing jobs.

Well, in this case, they've strangled the golden goose. Along with that luscious, golden Twinkie.

FrancSevin · Nov 19, 2012

It is easy to put a negative spin on it whe, after the crew scuttle the ship, the officers take what they can and scoot. Just as it is easy to blame the crew for the failure of the officers to lead.

It doesn't look like the captain aimed for the iceberg but, it wouldn't surprise me to find out he just couldn't take the union battles anymore.

Twinkies

Active member

Proudly Deplorable

Active member

Well-known member

Supported Ben Carson

Proudly Deplorable

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Proudly Deplorable

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Active member

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Unemployed Veg. Peddler

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator

Active member

Active member

Proudly Deplorable

Supported Ben Carson

New member

New member

Proudly Deplorable