Conquer Club

Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union

The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.

Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.

Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.

When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/04/unio ... one-union/

I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?

The companies licensed to use the name and recipe here was never affected. Oddly enough the southland corporation switched to a new name for the ones they were producing in house.

Phatscotty wrote:Unions Force Twinkies Out of Business, Twinkies Re-Opens With 1,500 New Hires… None Union

The company that bought the Twinkie, HoHo and Ding Dong brands out of bankruptcy is gearing up to reopen plants and hire workers, but it won’t be using union labor.

Hostess Brands — Metropoulos & Co. and Apollo Global Management’s APO -0.58% new incarnation of the baking company that liquidated in Chapter 11 — is reopening four bakeries in the next eight to 10 weeks, aiming to get Twinkie-deprived consumers the classic snack cake starting in July.

Chief Executive C. Dean Metropoulos said the company will pump $60 million in capital investments into the plants between now and September and aims to hire at least 1,500 workers. But they won’t be represented by unions, including the one whose nationwide strike sparked the 86-year-old company’s decision to shut down in November.

When you make unrealistic demands and force companies to shut down, don’t expect the company to re-open with arms wide open to your ilk.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/04/unio ... one-union/

I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?

Do you ever feel like a shill?

Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?

I'm reasonably sure he's of the opinion they should have went to school if they wanted a living wage.

You want to work in a factory? Move to China.

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?

He's only temporarily not rich, you see. Once he's rich, well...then these things will be in his favor!

Phatscotty wrote:I wonder how the union people who walked off the job at Hostess feel now? What did they accomplish?

Maybe they weren't trying to make their jobs better, but instead entering into some sort of mutually assured destruction revenge scheme against the company that negotiated that 28 cents of an employees 30 cent wage increase would go into the employee pension plan, only to take the money, forget the pension, then later give their executives raises.
http://www.google.com/#output=search&sc ... 24&bih=719

Really, it doesn't have much to do with unions so long as the company is honest and competitive. Non-union Little Debbie manufacturer McKee Foods manages to pay its employees equivalent wages to hostess', and their Twinkie equivalent "Dream cakes" are sold at 60% of the cost.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hostess ... 329177.htm
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McKee-F ... -E3287.htm

LIttle Debbie is some sort of a communist.

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs?

How do you know they are lower paying jobs? Why do you say I "rejoice?"

1,500 jobs are better than zero jobs, no?

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs?

How do you know they are lower paying jobs? Why do you say I "rejoice?"

You certainly give that impression.

Phatscotty wrote:1,500 jobs are better than zero jobs, no?

Those jobs wouldn't exist if the company unionized? You're saying the difference between people buying that company's products or not buying that company's products lies in whether the company is unionized or non-unionized? I find that VERY difficult to believe. Do you actually believe that?

Because if people want to buy a product, it will be made and sold.

I'm talking to NotYou2.

MYOB.

Phatscotty wrote:I'm talking to NotYou2.

MYOB.

Isn't it awful when you don't have a valid response to a point? Don't you hate it when that happens? Based on your posts in these fora, you must have a lot of hate in you, because that situations seems to happen to you a lot.

I don't even look at what you write. I gave you a 24 hour pass the other day, and I am even more certain now that I have no interest in anything you have to say. My choice to ignore every post you make doesn't have anything to do with the issues or your points, just like your posts, they are all about me and your personal vandetta, never about the issue.

My choice to ignore every post you make is based 100% on you and your lack of honor and high level of hypocrisy, and I will never forgive you for splicing 2 different posts together to try to make it look like I said something I didn't say to get me banned. Plus, that is the professional mod advice on how to deal with stalkers.

I asked Notyou2 a question, and I will wait for a response from Notyou2, or anyone else who actually wants to participate in actual discussion.

Phatscotty wrote:I don't even look at what you write. I gave you a 24 hour pass the other day, and I am even more certain now that I have no interest in anything you have to say.

Of course you don't. Why would you have any interest in information that invalidates your position?

Phatscotty wrote:My choice to ignore every post you make doesn't have anything to do with the issues or your points, just like your posts, they are all about me and your personal vandetta, never about the issue.

If you actually believe that, then you need to brush up on your reading skills. In fact, the idea that you even typed that leads me to believe that my statement is true.

Phatscotty wrote:My choice to ignore every post you make is based 100% on you and your lack of honor and high level of hypocrisy

And yet, you manage to drag yourself out to respond to posts that you believe you have some sort of a political response to. Hypocricy, indeed.

Phatscotty wrote:and I will never forgive you for splicing 2 different posts together to try to make it look like I said something I didn't say to get me banned.

I got you banned? I find that unlikely, given that I was ALREADY BANNED when your ban came down, thus I could not possibly have written a post, reported a post or PM'd a mod. I am curious as to what "splicing" you're referring to...my guess is that post by you has been conveniently edited after the fact, as you so often do.

Phatscotty wrote:Plus, that is the professional mod advice on how to deal with stalkers.

Just because we both post a lot, which means I respond to a lot of your posts (and you would respond to a lot of mine if you weren't hiding from reality). That does not make me a stalker. I respond to those other users who post a lot when I disagree with them, as well. You just happen to have a level of hypocricy inherent in your posts that creates a wonderful environment for my posts. It's like I'm The Daily Show (but FAR less humorous) to your Fox News (but FAR less informative).

Phatscotty wrote:I asked Notyou2 a question, and I will wait for a response from Notyou2, or anyone else who actually wants to participate in actual discussion.

I tried to participate in actual discussion. As per your habit, you ran from it with some lame thing about minding my own business.

There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

kentington wrote:There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then those workers simply aren't thinking straight. Like most people, they're probably following along like sheep to whatever the union spokepeople are telling them, rather than trying to look at the situation and how it might improve/weaken. It is unfortunate, and in this case I would blame the union to a degree (because it would appear they're just trying to increase the union's circle of influence rather than helping the employees), but I would blame those employees the most for not seeing how well they really do have it.

Unions can definitely have problems. Usually, the larger they are, the bigger the problems are. But unions are very necessary, unfortunately, because the nature of business is "shareholders/profit first" and that doesn't tend to be in the worker's favor (though it can be, when the business owner is as intelligent as the one you reference above seems to be).

kentington wrote:There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

I've always agreed unions can do good and some do good. Some unions are rotten and corrupt to the core. It's the people who think that unions are always good, no matter what, and they can never go too far or get too greedy brainwash that I want to address.

Heck, I am in 2 unions. Yay for me and my 98% underfunded critical status retirement account my union has set up for me. I have more faith in social security...

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then those workers simply aren't thinking straight. Like most people, they're probably following along like sheep to whatever the union spokepeople are telling them, rather than trying to look at the situation and how it might improve/weaken. It is unfortunate, and in this case I would blame the union to a degree (because it would appear they're just trying to increase the union's circle of influence rather than helping the employees), but I would blame those employees the most for not seeing how well they really do have it.

Unions can definitely have problems. Usually, the larger they are, the bigger the problems are. But unions are very necessary, unfortunately, because the nature of business is "shareholders/profit first" and that doesn't tend to be in the worker's favor (though it can be, when the business owner is as intelligent as the one you reference above seems to be).

Yeah, I wasn't only blaming the Unions in that situation.
I actually witnessed the employees change their minds over the last year. At first they were appalled at the Union, then I think there was an employee who may have been a plant.
A new guy showed up in a medium rank job. He was working with the employees and constantly complaining about the conditions. This facility was immaculate and constantly trying to improve safety and quality of work.
The branch leader, head dude in charge of the whole building, would walk the whole warehouse, pick up trash, knew everyone's names and the names of family members. He knew enough to discuss things going on in their lives and he also took care of his own tasks.

I was shocked to hear it, but repetition is an effective marketing ploy.

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then those workers simply aren't thinking straight. Like most people, they're probably following along like sheep to whatever the union spokepeople are telling them, rather than trying to look at the situation and how it might improve/weaken. It is unfortunate, and in this case I would blame the union to a degree (because it would appear they're just trying to increase the union's circle of influence rather than helping the employees), but I would blame those employees the most for not seeing how well they really do have it.

Unions can definitely have problems. Usually, the larger they are, the bigger the problems are. But unions are very necessary, unfortunately, because the nature of business is "shareholders/profit first" and that doesn't tend to be in the worker's favor (though it can be, when the business owner is as intelligent as the one you reference above seems to be).

Yeah, I wasn't only blaming the Unions in that situation.
I actually witnessed the employees change their minds over the last year. At first they were appalled at the Union, then I think there was an employee who may have been a plant.
A new guy showed up in a medium rank job. He was working with the employees and constantly complaining about the conditions. This facility was immaculate and constantly trying to improve safety and quality of work.
The branch leader, head dude in charge of the whole building, would walk the whole warehouse, pick up trash, knew everyone's names and the names of family members. He knew enough to discuss things going on in their lives and he also took care of his own tasks.

I was shocked to hear it, but repetition is an effective marketing ploy.

Why do you think the union wants to get their foot in the door so badly there? Is it because they are 100% innocent and only care about the workers? Or is it for money, power, and influence, or even for Democrat votes?

Phatscotty wrote:
Why do you think the union wants to get their foot in the door so badly there? Is it because they are 100% innocent and only care about the workers? Or is it for money, power, and influence, or even for Democrat votes?

Money!
Think about those benefits the employees were receiving. If a Union could get a piece of that money, then why not. It is worth the effort and in a few years people will convince themselves that the situation was horrible before the Union.

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

kentington wrote:There is a company branch near me that deals in Medical supplies. They make beaucoup bucks, the company. Talking to some of the employees, they have great benefits.
Great medical, holidays, the works. The company even helps the employees get loans for housing. Do they stop there? Nope, they loan money to their employees for electronics with no interest at all.
Unions have been trying to get in there and the votes kept getting turned down because the employees don't need one.
Well, repetition seems to have helped the Unions. The vote got close. Too close and the branch will be closing in a year and a half and moving to a state that is less union friendly. They are just waiting for the lease to end right now.

Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), then those workers simply aren't thinking straight. Like most people, they're probably following along like sheep to whatever the union spokepeople are telling them, rather than trying to look at the situation and how it might improve/weaken. It is unfortunate, and in this case I would blame the union to a degree (because it would appear they're just trying to increase the union's circle of influence rather than helping the employees), but I would blame those employees the most for not seeing how well they really do have it.

Unions can definitely have problems. Usually, the larger they are, the bigger the problems are. But unions are very necessary, unfortunately, because the nature of business is "shareholders/profit first" and that doesn't tend to be in the worker's favor (though it can be, when the business owner is as intelligent as the one you reference above seems to be).

Yeah, I wasn't only blaming the Unions in that situation.
I actually witnessed the employees change their minds over the last year. At first they were appalled at the Union, then I think there was an employee who may have been a plant.
A new guy showed up in a medium rank job. He was working with the employees and constantly complaining about the conditions. This facility was immaculate and constantly trying to improve safety and quality of work.
The branch leader, head dude in charge of the whole building, would walk the whole warehouse, pick up trash, knew everyone's names and the names of family members. He knew enough to discuss things going on in their lives and he also took care of his own tasks.

I was shocked to hear it, but repetition is an effective marketing ploy.

Why do you think the union wants to get their foot in the door so badly there? Is it because they are 100% innocent and only care about the workers? Or is it for money, power, and influence, or even for Democrat votes?

Democrat votes? Did you suddenly start voting Democratic once you joined a union, Phatscotty?

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

I've always agreed unions can do good and some do good. ... It's the people who think that unions are always good, no matter what,...brainwash that I want to address.

For example, this comment:

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?

Who says "union" means higher pay? When I was an optician, I worked for one "union shop" for a few years. The owners had to keep my pay a secret because they would get in trouble with the union if it was known that they were paying me more than the guys who had been there forever, for making myself worth more. I kept up on new products coming out and their benefits, so I benefitted both the patients and the company. The union-minded guys just kept fitting selling the same things they had for decades; they had no motivation to excel, as their raises were the scheduled, union-mandated ones for "seniority."

Unions certainly were needed 100 years ago with the robber barons and their sweatshops, "company store"-s and child labor. Now they often just get in the way and cheat everybody, including the workers.

Woodruff wrote:Democrat votes? Did you suddenly start voting Democratic once you joined a union, Phatscotty?

I am disappointed Woody. I thought you were in the know on these things.

Union employee= Sworn fealty to Democraps
Management = Sworn fealty to Repooblicants

daddy1gringo wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

kentington wrote:Unions have a place sometimes, but sometimes they just get in the way and take money out of the hands of employees.

I've always agreed unions can do good and some do good. ... It's the people who think that unions are always good, no matter what,...brainwash that I want to address.

For example, this comment:

notyou2 wrote:Phatty, why do you rejoice in lower paying jobs? What is the personal advantage to you? How will it help your phatness, your community, your state and the general well being of your fellow citizens and country?

Who says "union" means higher pay? When I was an optician, I worked for one "union shop" for a few years. The owners had to keep my pay a secret because they would get in trouble with the union if it was known that they were paying me more than the guys who had been there forever, for making myself worth more. I kept up on new products coming out and their benefits, so I benefitted both the patients and the company. The union-minded guys just kept fitting selling the same things they had for decades; they had no motivation to excel, as their raises were the scheduled, union-mandated ones for "seniority."

Unions certainly were needed 100 years ago with the robber barons and their sweatshops, "company store"-s and child labor. Now they often just get in the way and cheat everybody, including the workers.

I 100% agree with your last statement there. And I'm all too familiar with all the bullshit and excessive costs people have to go through at a union job. Sure, the unions can and do help the workers...but, as in this case, the unions can get way too powerful to the point where they shut down a company, and therefore zero jobs, so those unions, no they are not helping the workers or the company, they are hurting the workers, the economy, the company, and the country.

Did any of the union guys try to lean on you to vote Democrat? Or anyone else? My union steward use to badger me about how it was evil and against my own interests to vote Republican to the point where I did not want to captain the union softball tournament anymore, or the unions bowling tournament, or the volleyball tournament, because the argument always got heated and people left in a bad mood from a recreational event that was supposed to be fun, but those union guys (and my bosses) could never STFU about Bush. Not to mention, I was discriminated against when it came time for promotions. They want people who think like them, whether or not I deserved a promotion was secondary. Sure, I was a team player for my work, but it was clear I was not a team player when it came to controlling my vote/my personal politics.

Phatscotty wrote:I 100% agree with your last statement there. And I'm all too familiar with all the bullshit and excessive costs people have to go through at a union job. Sure, the unions can and do help the workers...but, as in this case, the unions can get way too powerful to the point where they shut down a company, and therefore zero jobs, so those unions, no they are not helping the workers or the company, they are hurting the workers, the economy, the company, and the country.

So it's your contention that the union was the reason that the maker of Twinkies went out of business. Am I right about that?