Twinkies is going out of business !

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steinhauer said:
Then that depends on if it is a government owned corporation or state owned enterprise (and the other numerous names you can call them).
Click to expand...

so you don't know really....

perhaps you should sit down and sssssshhhhhhh......
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Ah, not affected at all I see. All good, here is a quote from your article:

"Yes, Hostess Brands today began liquidation."

"And it's true that the last batches of Hostess Brand(ed) treats were sent out last night, and the ovens were fired down."

I don't think anyone on the forum said there would be no more twinkies.

Well, good that things are back to normal.
Click to expand...

there you go.

Someone will buy America's favorite indestructible snack.

FORTUNE -- Twinkies are going to be around for a long time to come. And not just because they're the foodstuff of choice for the zombie apocalypse.

Yes, Hostess Brands today began liquidation. Yes, all of the bakers lost their jobs (they weren't willing to make a deal). So did the delivery truck drivers (they were). And it's true that the last batches of Hostess Brand(ed) treats were sent out last night, and the ovens were fired down.

But that doesn't mean that Twinkies are gone forever, despite the sugar scare tactics of websites like HuffingtonPost:

What else would you expect from a news source that includes a "healthy living" vertical?

The truth is that the Twinkies brand still has value, and will be acquired. Same for Ding Dongs. And (probably) Wonder Bread. America may be undergoing major demographic shifts, but empty calories cut across age, gender and ethnicity. If the next generation's Twinkies don't have "Hostess" stamped on them, so be it. I'm not even certain the ironic heart carries much weight in our post-Saturday morning cartoon world.

The most likely endgame here is that another bakery snaps up Twinkies, and separates it from the Hostess snack brands (which include Drake's Cakes). There also is a small chance that private equity tries to buy the whole thing, now that it would be free of existing pension liabilities. Again, I don't think it's likely, but here would be my frontrunners:

KPS Capital Partners. They didn't seem to express much interest over the summer when Hostess was flailing, but it is a turnaround firm with recent experience in the food/beverage packaged good sector (okay, it was beer). KPS also has a history of working with organized labor, including The Teamsters (including on the beer deal).

Sun Capital Partners: Probably the country's most active turnaround firm, and also one with a small packaged foods practice. Sun Capital also is raising $3 billion for its new fund, so capital wouldn't be an issue.

Invus: These are the guys who turned around Keebler, which eventually went public before being acquired by Kellogg's (K).

Lion Capital: This is a moonshot among long-shots, but I'd be remiss in not including Lion as part of any list of private equity firms on a food deal. Kettle chips, Bumble Bee tuna, etc. My hesitance relates to Lion's tendancy to avoid distressed plays.

KPS declined to comment, and I haven't yet heard back from the other three firms.

But, again, don't worry about Twinkies. After all, there was enough demand last year to make 500 million of them. Someone will buy it, and they'll look exactly the same. Even if someone besides Hostess is making them.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
Perhaps you should clarify what you are asking.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should focus focus focus.

this thread is about Twinkies... not Company A or Company B or government. You and I both know Twinkies isn't owned or run by government... so let's cease this farce and stay on topic, shall we?
 
Jiro said:
perhaps you should focus focus focus.

this thread is about Twinkies... not Company A or Company B or government. You and I both know Twinkies isn't owned or run by government... so let's cease this farce and stay on topic, shall we?
Click to expand...

I never said it was run by government - you did.
 
Steinhauer said:
I never said it was run by government - you did.
Click to expand...
nope.... never said such a thing. I "asked" you, not said it.

but you did.

Steinhauer said:
Then that depends on if it is a government owned corporation or state owned enterprise (and the other numerous names you can call them).
Click to expand...

Steinhauer said:
Employment is regulated by government ... or didn't you know? Don't feign ignorance now ...
Click to expand...

in case you didn't know - this thread is about Twinkies.... not Obama... or leftists or Democratic Party...
 
Jiro said:
nope.... never said such a thing. I "asked" you, not said it.

but you did.





in case you didn't know - this thread is about Twinkies.... not Obama... or leftists or Democratic Party...
Click to expand...

This thread is about the union destroying 18,500 jobs (which I said). So don't try to confuse the issue.

You didn't build that!
 
Steinhauer said:
This thread is about the union destroying 18,500 jobs (which I said). So don't try to confuse the issue.

You didn't build that!
Click to expand...

good. very good. focus on that, not Obama.
 
:laugh2::laugh2:

Hostess is bankrupt … again - Fortune Management

do some more reading man
So far, in a courtroom near Manhattan and in a negotiating room in downtown Washington, they haven't come close, although a deal could happen even as you read this. The dramatis personae are impressive: the Teamsters; two large hedge funds, Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital; and the private-equity firm Ripplewood Holdings. In an acrimonious behind-the-scenes war -- refereed by a federal judge
Click to expand...
 
It is sad to see some people give the unions a bad taste.

I bet you don't realize about there are good and bad corporations, especially Steinhauer, and ask stupid questions.

The "labor" and "union" are not same definition, so the federal labor law isn't union replacement, but just give some protection at non-union workplaces.
 
VamPyroX said:
So, the higher-ups blame the strike for their bankruptcy?

They can't afford to give their own employees raises?

Yet, they can afford to give themselves triple-raises?

Hostess Execs 300 Percent Raise | Gather
Click to expand...
I can't stop thinking about this.

While the media is busy blaming the union for Hostess's demise, nobody is reporting that CEO Brian Driscoll helped himself to a 300 percent pay increase. Just another example of the one percent literally taking food out of the mouths of everyone else -- in this case Twinkies and Ho Hos.

Driscoll's salary went from $750,000 to $2,550,000. Another executive's salary went from $500,000 to $900,000 and another doubled his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

In the meantime, the company was eliminating its largest debt -- the Union Health and Welfare/Pension to which it owed $989,323,000 as reported in January 2012. If there's no money to pay workers and you're asking them to make concessions such as lower pay and higher insurance premiums, where do you get off doubling and tripling your salaries? Ask workers to take a pay cut while you suck every available dollar out of the company you can and steal their pensions and you wonder why they won't accept your deal?!

Hostess clearly has had numerous problems for a long time now. They first filed bankruptcy in 2004. Then after Driscoll helped himself to his 300 percent raise, Gregory Rayburn was appointed CEO -- the sixth CEO in the past ten years. He immediately reduced the salaries of the four top executives to $1 per year. A day late and a dollar short.

Even without the pension costs, which the company quit paying this year, experts have been commenting on the company's struggles and dim outlook for the future. They emerged from the 2004 bankruptcy more in debt than when they went in. Combine that with bad sales and poor, greedy management eating up all the profits. It's no wonder Twinkies are now extinct.
Click to expand...

Then they wanted 30% pay cut for their employees. WTF? I hope that one day a judge will have them arrested.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Yes, we are not allowed to strike.
Click to expand...

Yes, because if something along the lines of Greece were to happen, like all the workers striking and refusing to come back to work, then the gov't could die very quickly. Keep an eye on Greece to see what might be in store for the US down the road.

CrazyPaul, what is the punishment if you go striking anyway, since it's not just "against the agency's policy," but in fact illegal?
 
deafdrummer said:
Yes, because if something along the lines of Greece were to happen, like all the workers striking and refusing to come back to work, then the gov't could die very quickly. Keep an eye on Greece to see what might be in store for the US down the road.

CrazyPaul, what is the punishment if you go striking anyway, since it's not just "against the agency's policy," but in fact illegal?
Click to expand...

1) You can be asked go back to work by president (Obama) or federal officials
2) Termination of employment
3) Deployment of National Guard to do restore order (extreme rare)
 
Foxrac said:
It is sad to see some people give the unions a bad taste.

I bet you don't realize about there are good and bad corporations, especially Steinhauer, and ask stupid questions.

The "labor" and "union" are not same definition, so the federal labor law isn't union replacement, but just give some protection at non-union workplaces.
Click to expand...

Unions are evil. They destroy jobs.

http://www.nrtw.org/en/press/2012/02/worker-wins-nlrb-settlement-after-en

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/17/walmart-files-complaint-with-nlrb-over-union-harassment/
 
Steinhauer said:
Unions are evil. They destroy jobs.

Worker Wins NLRB Settlement after Enduring Harassment by Union Officials | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

The PJ Tatler » Walmart Files Complaint with NLRB Over Union Harassment
Click to expand...

No, not really, I disagree with you and you don't know about whole situation with unions. There are MANY reasons to destroy the jobs, especially corporate tax, labor regulation, environment regulation and government interference. Based on your logic, if union was causing a problem so most companies should move to southern states, but they didn't because they chose China and other countries (oversea) for many reasons.

Like I said, there are GOOD and BAD unions so NO DIFFERENCE from corporations.

Both of your sources are strongly opinion and anti-union, so not interested to hear about your claim based on anti-union. There are many of my families are retired union workers and they share about importance of union.
 
Unions are obsolete. They know this, that is why they are destructive - coercion and harassment are the strategies employed by unions.
 
Steinhauer said:
Unions are obsolete. They know this, that is why they are destructive - coercion and harassment are the strategies employed by unions.
Click to expand...

You entitled your opinion and I don't agree with you.

Not all unions run those problem, so only bad unions have coercion and harassment, so no difference because you can still harassed or coercion by corporations. Also, harassment by union is illegal under federal law (Taft Hartley Act).

No surprise about you are from Georgia and it is very anti-union in the southern states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top