It's the nostalgic factor.

xanderf

Kanti

If you don't like someone else eating the fruits of your labor,  you don't have to have a job.  It's crazy I know; but you can actually start your own business and be your own boss.

I assume you realize that not every human is a clone of The Ideal Man, who can compose symphonies, lift 500-lb weights, code new AI routines, perform research to cure cancer, and lead a rock band, right?

Indeed, some people even have crazy ideas like following basic biological instinct to preserve our species...and have a family.  Some of these folks (I don't know any, personally, although I've heard they exist) don't actually want their lives to be about nothing more than the pursuit of more dollar bills, and want to do something more meaningful with it.

Of course, mere survival in our current culture requires tons of those dollar bills...so everyone is stuck with a need to make money, whether it's important to them or not.  Their potential disinterest in being a competitive, cut-throat, power-broker businessman puts them at a serious disadvantage in negotiating the value of their time with people who are competitive, cut-through, power-broker businessman.  Enter the concept of 'Unions' to balance the odds out.

(Although, as noted up-thread...you get rid of the idea of corporations/trusts/etc, and I think we can have a serious talk about getting rid of unions, too.  I'm all about 'balance'...)

If that is your idea of a what it is to run your own business, then so be it.  Working for yourself is always an option, but if you're more comfortable with someone else eating the fruits of your labor then that is on you.  I have a family and a household to support and if that means creating a business from scratch when no one is hiring, or even selling Twinkies at street value, so be it. 
 
Make all the excuses you want, but your concept of a self employed man is completely out of touch with reality. 

phades 

mwparrish 

When a union can be ignorant enough to put the final nail in the coffin of a corporation and in the process force 18,500 people (including the 6,000 they represent) to the unemployment line, it doesn't sound like anyone is serving the interests they're supposed to.  I bet the union bosses are still rich though.  Curse you, logic! 

With the debt load management piled on, they would have been asking for consessions again in under 6 months easily. The bakers and truck drivers were already working at under market value with fewer benefits. 

At some point you have to realize that punishing the folks who actually produce something is not productive. That is the point of the strike. What you should be upset about is the millions in bonus money being paid out to the executives while they liquidate the company. Millions of dollars for failure, which makes no sense. 

 
 
So working for Hostess is a hostage situation where they are forced to work at below market value?  Why weren't they leaving en masse for higher paying jobs then?  Oh right, the market wouldn't support it, therefore, the market price was lower than you allege.
 
See, this is where we differ.  You confuse productivity with profitability.  I can spend my day doing any number of tasks productively and none of them have any significant value.  You think baking Twinkies is a productive use of time? Yes, but not the most profitable use for the wages demanded.
 
As for the bonuses and salary of executives.  Yeah, I get it.  The optics are terrible and non-merit bonuses are bad ideas.  That still doesn't justify union bosses taking union members money in the form of dues and then putting them in the unemployment line while they get paid handsomely.  Something no one dares bring up here -- which is highly hypocritical since they accuse Hostess management of the same sorts of actions.  So the union made it's point, Hostess employees won't be bullied around, except by the union bosses, who see to it they're unemployed and poor.
 

mwparrish
So working for Hostess is a hostage situation where they are forced to work at below market value?  Why weren't they leaving en masse for higher paying jobs then?

Neg. Check bimbo out for example. They have higher wages and benefits. Also check how many positions they have total versus how many are vacant. Not so many vacant. Therefore, they couldn't just "leave" for "better paying" jobs. Oh sure, they could try and form their own baking conglomerate with fictional startup money that doesn't exist... That would look better than what the executives at hostess were pulling over the last 10 years.

mwparrish
See, this is where we differ.  You confuse productivity with profitability.  I can spend my day doing any number of tasks productively and none of them have any significant value.

The management did nothing that was productive or profitable, yet they are the ones retaining 100% of the monies. In fact, they even cost the company more money acquiring more debt to service things like installing tinted glass to their factories or painting lockers. To quote O' Riley, "you can't explain that".
 

mwparrish 
That still doesn't justify union bosses taking union members money in the form of dues and then putting them in the unemployment line while they get paid handsomely.  Something no one dares bring up here -- which is highly hypocritical since they accuse Hostess management of the same sorts of actions.  So the union made it's point, Hostess employees won't be bullied around, except by the union bosses, who see to it they're unemployed and poor.

The executives at both levels are similar, however the difference that you are overlooking is that the actual members voted to strike and try for fewer consessions being handed over believing that the company could still earn a profit with a different managerial direction.

XrayMan

 
Well they are back from the dead. The company says the cakes will taste the same, but that the boxes will now bear the tag line "The Sweetest Comeback In The History Of Ever."

Starting July 15th, they will be back on the shelves:

http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-twinkies-return-shelves-july-15-163913503.html               

Nice. 

Sajin 

XrayMan 


Well they are back from the dead. The company says the cakes will taste the same, but that the boxes will now bear the tag line "The Sweetest Comeback In The History Of Ever." 

Starting July 15th, they will be back on the shelves: 

http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-twinkies-return-shelves-july-15-163913503.html                 

 
Nice.  

 
And starting July 16, people will be asking when there will be more Twinkies on the shelves again.

NordicJedi

Sajin 

XrayMan 


Well they are back from the dead. The company says the cakes will taste the same, but that the boxes will now bear the tag line "The Sweetest Comeback In The History Of Ever." 

Starting July 15th, they will be back on the shelves: 

http://news.yahoo.com/hostess-twinkies-return-shelves-july-15-163913503.html                 

 
Nice.  

 
And starting July 16, people will be asking when there will be more Twinkies on the shelves again.

Good point. Wonder if I would have to wait in a long line at Walmart, Albertsons, or wherever they will be sold. I'm sure they will sell out fast, because of all the hype before the big day.  LOL.         =)

I ate two Twinkies last night. 

Wow never knew Twinkies would be a long thread on a computer forum.  I would hate to be the person that bought a box of Twinkies for $1000 bucks.

Xray, you in the resurrection business?

After what Hostess pulled, Im disgusted that peoples are still willing to support them........

Everytime this thread gets bumped, I think about grabbing a few Twinkies from the stash.

Didnt know that Xray. Im sure the new owners will be watched like hawks?

knightsilver

Didnt know that Xray. Im sure the new owners will be watched like hawks?

I wouldn't doubt it.
 

randolla


I never thought this thread would go on to 175 posts!!

Maybe I should start one about Ding Dongs!

I think we have had enough sweets for this year. We are what we eat, and we don't want to be Ding Dongs.