Twinkies/Ding Dongs GONE FOREVER !!!

[Sardondi]

Yep, Twinkies will no doubt survive with new ownership. The only things which will die are the 18,000 US jobs which will now go to whatever nation buys the remnants. Like Mexico. Union proud, indeed.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yep, Twinkies will no doubt survive with new ownership. The only things which will die are the 18,000 US jobs which will now go to whatever nation buys the remnants. Like Mexico. Union proud, indeed.

Unions are run for the benefit of union bosses, just like corporations are run for the benefit of the executives, and government agencies are run for the benefit of the top managers there.

The union didn't at all mind losing those jobs (although they are probably sad to see the dues go), now they can use this incident as an example to other businesses what could happen to them if they don't knuckle under.  The heck with the 18,000 jobs lost - now they have a club for next time, somewhere else.

[Nucky Nolan]

Yep, Twinkies will no doubt survive with new ownership. The only things which will die are the 18,000 US jobs which will now go to whatever nation buys the remnants. Like Mexico. Union proud, indeed.

Management shares some of the blame. The executives could have made some sacrifices to alleviate the situation. Both the blue-collar contingent and the white-collar contingent share responsibility in the untimely death(?) of Fruit Pie, the Magician. I just hope that Hostess can regroup so that the snack cakes aren't split between varied huge corporations like much of American junk food is.

[b_dubb]

6 CEO's in 10 years.  that sounds like recipe for disaster.  pardon the expression.  a company can only afford so many golden parachutes

[Sardondi]

6 CEO's in 10 years.  that sounds like recipe for disaster.  pardon the expression.  a company can only afford so many golden parachutes

The symbolism of shared sacrifice is one thing; the bottom line another: 100 golden parachutes are but a drop in the bucket, and had nothing substantively to do with why the company failed. It's poor management, but not primarily because of what it cost the company, which, as I said was a pittance by comparison to labor costs. Serial buyouts (assuming they happened) were poor management primarily because they made it difficult to save labor from itself.

That is, the buyouts made it hard to keep the union from making stupid, emotional decisions based on resentment over buyouts rather than logic, which would have focused them on keeping their jobs. Instead they "showed" the company to retaliate for the "unfairness" of presumably giving golden parachutes.

But knowing that so many of labor's decisions are made on emotion as opposed to logic, management should have foreseen this, and once again saved labor from itself. But didn't. And so the company failed. But the union is unified, strong and proud. And out of work.

[Falkie2013]

I used to love dunking the chocolate covered donuts in my coffee; the seasonal strawberry and peach pies when they came out.

My gf loved snowballs.

I once had a book that said the true shelf life of a Twinkie was 23 years.

I can't understand how one union could decide to screw over all of the other union workers who had settled with Hostess.

If I were an HR person in charge of hiring and a former member of the union that refused to budge came to me for a job, I would NEVER hire him or her. They pissed off millions of Americans who ate the things every day.

And Hostess had taken over Dolly Madison as well so there went my strawberry and vanilla zingers too.

The union stood fast or some similar crap ?

They screwed over 15,000 other workers who had families, wives and kids.

To hell with them.

I'm surprised no other company has come along to restart the product line.


*******************
Why You Should Never Mess With A Man’s Twinkie  Posted by Redneck Texan on 26 September 2008, 7:06 am         >FOXNews â€" LAREDO, Texas â€"  The trial of a man accused of executing a teen who broke into his home with friends looking for snacks has many in this border city outraged. Not because of the crime, but because the man is facing a murder charge.
In a state where the right to use deadly force to protect one’s life and property is sacrosanct and frontier justice is still sometimes the norm â€" particularly on the violence-plagued Texas-Mexico border â€" prosecutors have to explain the decision to try Jose Luis Gonzalez.
Even their future boss, the man who is running uncontested for Webb County district attorney in November, disagrees with the decision; he is Gonzalez’s defense attorney.
Gonzalez, a wiry, graying 63-year-old, had endured several break-ins at his trailer in a hard-scrabble community east of town when four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke into his trailer to rummage for chips and soda in July 2007. Gonzalez was in a nearby building at the time.
Gonzalez went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. The boys, who were unarmed, were forced to their knees, attorneys on both sides say.
The boys claim they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly.
Then, the medical examiner testified, 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano was shot in the back at point-blank range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.
Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., now 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Francisco’s body outside.
Texas law does allow homeowners to use deadly force to protect themselves and their property, and prosecutors and grand juries have generally applied that standard broadly. In June, a grand jury in Houston cleared a homeowner who shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor’s house despite the dispatcher’s repeated request that he stay inside his own home.
“The homeowner’s right to defend himself is not what’s on trial in this case,” said Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker, speaking of the Gonzalez case. The shooting “was unnecessary and unreasonable, and Texas law doesn’t protect that kind of behavior.”
But folks in this border city scarred by drug violence across the Rio Grande defend Gonzalez’s actions.
“It’s a table topic at coffee shops, not only in Laredo but throughout the region,” said Mayor Raul Salinas, who noted that folks tend to have strong opinions about the right to protect themselves here. “There’s been some debate.”
Reader responses to articles published on the Laredo Morning Times Web site called Gonzalez’s prosecution unfair and blasted the teen, saying Francisco got what he deserved.
Food distributor Francisco Hernandez pointed out in an interview with The Associated Press that a homeowner wouldn’t know whether the intruders were there “to steal potato chips or to stab you.”
“He really shouldn’t be on trial,” Hernandez said.
Gonzalez could get up to life in prison if he’s convicted of first-degree murder. His attorney, Isidro “Chilo” Alaniz, said his client was simply acting in self-defense when he found the boys in the trailer late at night.
“There is not a day that goes by that Mr. Gonzalez doesn’t think about that little boy,” Alaniz said. But Gonzalez “feared for his life.”
It was four on one when Gonzalez entered the trailer, Alaniz said. He had the boys on the ground and recognized at least one of them, but Gonzalez thought 13-year-old boy was lunging at him when he fired the shotgun, Alaniz said.
The case will be Alaniz’s last as a criminal defense attorney. The 40-year-old won the Democratic nomination in April and has no Republican opponent for district attorney in the November.

[liseski]

Not to mention their odd combination of homophobia and latent homoeroticism.  I think Jack likes the cock and isn't sure what to do about it.

thank you for this laugh. brilliant.
Chick Tracts have always been like roadkill for me....just.can't.look.away

as for Twinkies? sigh....we still have the damned things

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/rest-easy-canada-your-twinkie-supply-is-safe/article5548529/

[Falkie2013]

I was given a package of Safeway's equivalent of a Ding Dong.

The thing was ghastly. Took one bite and got a chemical aftertaste and threw it out.

Curse you, evil, greedy sob baker's union !

Not only did you take away my chocolate mini donuts, my Hostess Strawberry and Peach pies but also my Zingers !

And screwed over 16,500 other union members who had signed with Hostess in the process and an entire continent of Hostess lovers as well.

[Falkie2013]

Fox has announced that Hostess has sold part of their product line to a new baker and they may be about to sell the Hostess brand as well. It was on Fox's website tonight.

[MV/Liberace!]

I would like to encourage people not to purchase the new Twinkies that have been reintroduced to the market. I view their reintroduction as nothing more than a big fat union busting operation. No, I am not opposed to unionized labor in the private sector.

[onan]

I know Twinkies are a part of our "culture". I can't think of any reason to eat one. Maybe if I were 10.

[Morgus]

Twinkies are back, but some fans are upset that they're smaller than they remember:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/15/news/companies/twinkies-size/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[West of the Rockies]

I still kind of like Ding Dongs... anyone remember the Ding Dong knock-off "Boom-Boom's"?  How 'bout Danish-Go-Rounds (a PopTart wannabe).  Carnation Breakfast Bars?  (Loved those!)  Space Food Sticks?  Ah, growing up in the 60's....

[West of the Rockies]

Wait... I just thought -- what the heck is this thread doing in "Policitics"?  Isn't this more of a "Random Stupid Thing" kind of thing?

[PB the Deplorable]

I still kind of like Ding Dongs... anyone remember the Ding Dong knock-off "Boom-Boom's"?  How 'bout Danish-Go-Rounds (a PopTart wannabe).  Carnation Breakfast Bars?  (Loved those!)  Space Food Sticks?  Ah, growing up in the 60's....

I used to get the Ding Dongs, Ho-hos, cupcakes, and donuts.  I don't think I ever even had a Twinkie.  They aren't chocolate.

[ItsOver]

I noticed the Hostess cupcakes were back in the grocery last week.  I always preferred the cupcakes to the Twinkies, as a kid.  I even remember liking the orange cupcakes at one time.   Hmmmm.... that good 'ol artificial orange tangy taste.     Are they "outlawed" by the food Nazi's in the school cafeterias now? 

[Morgus]

I looked for the Hostess Twinkies and Cupcakes at the grocery store today but couldn't find them.
However there was a cheaper copy-cat brand "Little Debbie" that had what looked like the same cakes, the twinkies were called "Cloud Cakes" and they also made the same looking type of chocolate cupcakes as Hostess too.

[Sardondi]

I saw this story: New Twinkies smaller, fewer calories - http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/15/twinkies-release-smaller/2517709/

Here's the money quote: "The new owners of Hostess have leaner operating costs now that they're no longer using unionized workers."

If you remember, the whole issue about Twinkies disappearing was because the company that had made them for decades, Hostess Brands, was on the verge of bankruptcy, and had asked for concessions from its union employees, so that the company could stay in business and they could keep their jobs. But the employees thought it much more important to tell management to kiss their ass, and in the sweetest little bit of schadenfreude-producing stupidity they refused any concessions at all. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

And so they all lost their jobs shortly after when the company folded, just like management told them would happen. And when someone bought the shattered remnants of Hostess, they made sure they didn't make the same mistake of handcuffing their economic future to a bunch of short-sighted, combative ingrates, and hired non-union workers eager for jobs.

And the union workers who said hell no they wouldn't give an inch? The ones who could have kept their jobs with a few concessions? Well, they have no jobs, but boy, did they show those bosses who was tough. Yep, they knew what was the important thing, those guys. I love a happy ending.

[MV/Liberace!]

If you remember, the whole issue about Twinkies disappearing was because the company that had made them for decades, Hostess Brands, was on the verge of bankruptcy, and had asked for concessions from its union employees, so that the company could stay in business and they could keep their jobs. But the employees thought it much more important to tell management to kiss their ass, and in the sweetest little bit of schadenfreude-producing stupidity they refused any concessions at all. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

the company negotiated and agreed upon a contract with the union.  i'd say it sounds like management should have been a bit more conscious of what they were agreeing to.  the contract terms were no surprise to them. 

yeah, sure, the workers were told they'd be without a job if they didn't take pay cuts, and that did come to pass... but i don't know the extent of the paycuts they were being asked to take.  i'm certain most people would be inclined to reject pay cuts in their jobs, particularly if they feel underpaid already.


the american standard of living, disintegrating before our eyes.  i hope those new hostess employees are happy with their $8.75 per hour jobs.  hardly a happy ending.

[Sardondi]

the company negotiated and agreed upon a contract with the union.  i'd say it sounds like management should have been a bit more conscious of what they were agreeing to.  the contract terms were no surprise to them. 

yeah, sure, the workers were told they'd be without a job if they didn't take pay cuts, and that did come to pass... but i don't know the extent of the paycuts they were being asked to take.  i'm certain most people would be inclined to reject pay cuts in their jobs, particularly if they feel underpaid already.


the american standard of living, disintegrating before our eyes.  i hope those new hostess employees are happy with their $8.75 per hour jobs.  hardly a happy ending.

A union contract is a suicide pact? Management was simply telling the workers the facts of life: "We must have concessions on labor costs or we cannot survive. Your choice." It is beyond explanation that someone would choose the death of their jobs just so they wouldn't give something that management asked for. I've worked in union shops many times when I was younger, including a coal mine and a US Steel plant (as USX was known then). And I know very well that incredibly self-destructive chip-on-the-shoulder attitude which so often infects union members. It is just as self-defeating and destructive as alcoholism or drug addiction. And I have no doubt it was that hatred of management which motivated the Hostess lunkheads to simply oppose whatever management asked for, even though it destroyed their jobs. Hell, even a chimp won't make a choice knowing it will stop his food. That takes a good union man.

[Juan]

Old Twinkies had a shelf life of 26-days.  The new ones have a shelf life of 45-days.

[Sardondi]

Old Twinkies had a shelf life of 26-days.  The new ones have a shelf life of 45-days.

I wonder if there is a single food product in a Twinkie. A touch of wheat to go with the sawdust? Maybe a little actual sugar, although a chemically unusual sugar at that?

[onan]

I saw this story: New Twinkies smaller, fewer calories - http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/15/twinkies-release-smaller/2517709/

Here's the money quote: "The new owners of Hostess have leaner operating costs now that they're no longer using unionized workers."

If you remember, the whole issue about Twinkies disappearing was because the company that had made them for decades, Hostess Brands, was on the verge of bankruptcy, and had asked for concessions from its union employees, so that the company could stay in business and they could keep their jobs. But the employees thought it much more important to tell management to kiss their ass, and in the sweetest little bit of schadenfreude-producing stupidity they refused any concessions at all. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

And so they all lost their jobs shortly after when the company folded, just like management told them would happen. And when someone bought the shattered remnants of Hostess, they made sure they didn't make the same mistake of handcuffing their economic future to a bunch of short-sighted, combative ingrates, and hired non-union workers eager for jobs.

And the union workers who said hell no they wouldn't give an inch? The ones who could have kept their jobs with a few concessions? Well, they have no jobs, but boy, did they show those bosses who was tough. Yep, they knew what was the important thing, those guys. I love a happy ending.

What you don't report with this is: The employees had agreed to 2 previous negotiations that stalled any raises and lowered the pay of several positions. And that management had increased their own salaries. That the management had made some fairly bad decisions regarding manufacture.


Obviously, though it was the greedy workers that had twice before sided with the company's plan even though upper echelons continued to get a bigger slice.

[MV/Liberace!]

A union contract is a suicide pact?

no, it's not, but it sounds the company was being run rather poorly if they were this incapable of assessing the financials of what they'd agreed to.  in what other ways was management ass raping the company through their incompetence?  perhaps there's blame to go around.

And I have no doubt it was that hatred of management which motivated the Hostess lunkheads to simply oppose whatever management asked for...

i don't think it's as simple as them having opposed whatever management asked for.  see onan's post above. 


i'm not willing to call a guy with a wife and child making $16 per hour "greedy" when he winces at the notion of taking a pay cut.  also, the fact that the company tells the union they're going under "unless you agree to xyz" doesn't necessarily make it so.  on the inverse... sometimes companies go under without employees having any clue it's coming. 


your union experiences don't sound similar to mine at all.  perhaps it's a generational thing, but who knows.  i worked as a teamster in a whiskey factory in st. louis, and i recall very friendly relations between labor and management... and very little of the generalized bitterness you mention. 

[NowhereInTime]

I would like to encourage people not to purchase the new Twinkies that have been reintroduced to the market. I view their reintroduction as nothing more than a big fat union busting operation. No, I am not opposed to unionized labor in the private sector.

Hear, hear!  Besides I'm fat enough already...

[MV/Liberace!]

Besides I'm fat enough already...

Yes, there's that, too.

[Sardondi]

What you don't report with this is: The employees had agreed to 2 previous negotiations that stalled any raises and lowered the pay of several positions. And that management had increased their own salaries. That the management had made some fairly bad decisions regarding manufacture.
Obviously, though it was the greedy workers that had twice before sided with the company's plan even though upper echelons continued to get a bigger slice.

Straight from the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union talking points. The actual fact was that pension costs and plummeting sales were the hurdles Hostess had to find a way over. I love how the union tried to paint an inarguably changed food culture, in which Twinkies and Hostess's other baked goods had become the junk-food poster boy emblematic of obesity and poor health, as a result of poor management decisions. Twinkies themselves were painted by food activists as toxic, chemical-laden gut bombs, and it was an absolute humiliation among supposedly "health-conscious" persons to be found eating one. It's mere pretext for the union to claim that a failure to modernize the factories destroyed the company: Hostess couldn't sell it's product. Between direct competition from companies which were able to undersell Hostess because they didn't have the labor costs Hostess did, and the changing food culture, Hostess's sales fell something like 28% between 2004 and 2010. That's huge, and it demands drastic cutbacks.

And Hostess's pension costs were enormous. (The top 11 debtors which Hostess owed in its bankruptcy were pension funds.)

And those "management raises"? Those were preliminary proposals, of which almost none actually happened. In fact, the salaries of the top 4 men in the company were reduced to $1 per year. Besides, what is it about management costs that magically makes every $1 spent on management salaries somehow the equivalent of $1,000 in labor salaries and pension contributions? Management costs are a drop in the bucket compared to labor. What the union's real gripe was, "No fair! He got more than I did!".

Labor wanted choices which were not and could not be on the table. My whole point is that whether or not it felt "fair", or whether or not they felt like they had already given enough, it didn't matter: the only choice was concede or die. Labor was presented with a starkly evident choice: to make the changes and take less, or go without anything at all. In the end they acted like adolescents who were unable to get over "unfairness". And their jobs died. It's simply irresponsible.

[ItsOver]

Man... I could use something with some creme filling and delightful artificial taste after all of this. 

[coaster]

Never understood why people like twinkies so much. Sure they have a history, but they taste horrible.

[Tinfoil Hat]

Regardless, every one loses, even the Twinkies. I read that people were complaining the new ones were smaller. What they didn't realize is that the new company is making the smaller version with which Hostess replaced the old, larger Twinkie at the end of their ownership.

How sad.