Shared publicly  - 
 
A worker strike was the final straw for the maker of Twinkies to close plants down, seek liquidation. They also make Donettes, HoHos and so much more. What's your favorite Hostess product? http://on.wsj.com/WbrsWG

Photo: Hostess
53
20
Cecelia Pegg's profile photoJohn Norris's profile photodarryl alisto's profile photojamal ahmad's profile photo
51 comments
 
We'll at least the Twinkies will never go bad, even if the company goes under.

Favorite?  Gotta be the Twinkies... though Snowballs are very tempting.
 
There has to be more to this than just a strike.

With all the people out of work, they can surely find someone to "bake" the chemical-goo into their end product.
 
It has been said that Twinkies will survive a nuclear holocaust, but apparently they cannot survive Obamanomics.
 
I wouldn't stress too much over it.  The company is liquidating its assets among which are certainly the patent/recipe/copyright for Twinkies.  They'll be back--we're too addicted and fat for them to disappear completely.
 
Unions bad, Twinkies good.
 
Just a workers strike? They were holding it by the skin of their teeth or Twinkies used the strike as a pretext to get rid of a failed business model.
I always thought their products were tasty, but unhealthy (even when I don't buy at Whole Foods stores).
 
This may be the end of Hostess. But not the Twinkie... they will survive the Mayan apocalypse! #guaranteed  
 
There is no shortage of demand for twinkies you stupid leftist, the unions tanked a huge business and killed 18k jobs in the process. 
 
Count that as another "victory" for U-N-I-O-N-S !
 
or a nation wiser on nutrition....
 
+John McGarvey Union labor laws prohibit a company firing and rehiring non-union. Shutting down is only option.
Translate
 
I never ate them before,so IDC . But, I feel bad for the workers.
 
Americans don't need them anyway; we're fat enough as it is.
 
Jobs from a large megalomaniacal corporation? No, we don't. Maybe Hostess' demise will open a nice for smaller businesses to eek their way in to the market. Of course, that will probably require Little Debbie's demise as well. 
 
+James Redd Yes, working on vertical farms, building wind farms, laying new internet cable, building high speed rail and updating our antiquated dock and water shipping system. But those 18,000 jobs would only account for about 0.9% of the jobs we would create by undertaking those necessary projects.
 
Yeah. So typical. People bought homes and sent kids to college with the help of a job from that megalomaniacal corporation. Let's see how quickly they find work or join the food stamp line.
 
Oh please, do you still believe what we have is the free capitalism that we had in 1950? Grow up!
I don't like unions any more than you do, but in the age of super-corporations, unions are a necessary evil.
 
Those union workers are getting food stamps now.
 
+Margaret Leber None. Although theoretically (legally) I could be in  one, I don't dare to even think of it. 
 
No actually; it's dead on.

How many people who worked for that company do you think actually enjoyed what they did? Do you think they wanted to be there? They might have a house and kids in college, but do you think they were enjoying any of it? The truth is that corporations dangle the carrot of an easy paycheck in front of people in exchange for their lives. Now maybe those people will go out and find real careers actually doing something that matters, rather than standing around imitating a human cog for some corporate sleazebag who already has more money than he deserves.
 
I missed the part where we elected +Paul Vasquez to decide who deserves how much money. 

Apparently we have a President who does that now. 
 
+Paul Vasquez is free to pontificate because he's in a teacher's union, and believes the State of California can't go out of business.

If they sold stock, I sure wouldn't buy any, though.  
 
I don't know if this particular Corp is very large, but in general, they have become a network of interconnected behemoths that can defy the power of a government while at the same time suppressing freedom of enterprise.
 
Comical to talk of "suppressing freedom of enterprise" while supporting unionization.
 
+Margaret Leber are you a teacher of some kind? Are you trying to stimulate my critical thinking abilities with leading circular questions?
 
the mayor has said that the company had planned to close the plant all along, they talked to him in like Feb(?).  If that is the case, then this was just an excuse to close the doors of a company that has been on the coals for a decade already and has never recovered from their bankruptcy they were already in....
 
Huh. Interesting how the entire executive board of Hostess all doubled their salaries in July ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323993512506050.html ). Giving themselves all raises of 200-300% while leading an obviously sinking ship (so they can report a higher base salary when they flee to other corporate jobs?), while asking their employees to tighten their belts? Laughable corporate excess disguised as "meanie unions". LOL.
 
+Julian Garcia How can they be "necessary" if you're not in one when you could be? Obviously they are not necessary to you. 

Do you believe that unions engage in suppressing freedom of enterprise?
 
Regardless of your beliefs political or otherwise, this is a sad day in American history...
 
Very sad all those poor people are losing their jobs!
 
+Julian Garcia If a gang of thugs tells me I must pay tribute to them before I can sell my labor to a company, I say they're suppressing my freedom of enterprise. 
 
Crowdsource financing to the rescue! 
 
The snack giant endured $52 million in workers' comp claims in 2011, according to its bankruptcy filing this January. Hostess's 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012.

Union work rules usually required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. Drivers weren't allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren't allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another "pull up" employee moved products from back rooms to shelves.
 
Noooooo! Oh well, l guess its time to start eating doughnuts.
 
+David Williams   thanks for sharing all the info, one thing that stands out, it is amazing a company would have allowed it's self to be evolve to a point where it could think it could manage all those contracts, healthcare plans etc.   That's pure crazy stuff there.  Those statistics are indicative of a very very poorly managed company.   Its easy to blame the unions while top executives rake in huge salaries and give themselves huge raises while their company melts down around them.....
 
Not so fast!!  It appears a company will by the "troubled" brand, create a labor-friendly environment and "save" them...All you suckers who bought this crap off of eBay better be kicking yourself right about now.
 
not so fast, appears Hostess will be negotiating with the union after all.....
 
I don't see why someone would buy Twinkies off the internet 
Add a comment...