Twinkies – and 18000 jobs – fall victim to union-management dispute; Update: Teamsters throw bakers union under the bus?

posted at 10:31 am on November 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Hooked on Ho-Hos?  Find Ding-Dongs delectable?  Were Twinkies an indelible (if particularly edible) part of your childhood?  Be prepared to consign them all and many other junk-food delicacies to nostalgia.  Hostess, which has made these sugary staples for years, announced this morning that they will liquidate their business and end production after failing to negotiate new labor contracts with several unions.  Along with these confections, 18,000 jobs will also disappear:

“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, chief executive officer. “Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”

About one-third of the company’s workers are union members who are unhappy about the company’s cutbacks during its bankruptcy reorganization.

But problems with several unions — including the Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco workers and the Grain Millers International Union — have prevented the company from moving forward. Hostess said it will seek bankruptcy court permission to sell all of its assets. The company said bakery production has already shut down.

Without much more data than this, it’s impossible to say whether the unions or the company has been unreasonable in this dispute, or whether it might be a blend of both, as is usually the case. Sugary snacks like the kind Hostess produces have fallen out of political favor, certainly, but I doubt that sales have dropped dramatically. They have been a ubiquitous presence in supermarkets, convenience stores, and kid’s lunch bags since before I was a child, and in moderation don’t do any harm to anyone who is otherwise healthy.

Those aren’t the only places where Hostess-brand snacks have impacted the culture, either. Twinkies have especially captured the cultural imagination, and in one notable case, the legal imagination.  When Dan White stood trial for the 1978 murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone in San Francisco, his attorneys tried to argue that White had a diminished capacity to form an intent to murder, thanks to depression that became intensified by consumption of large amounts of sugary snacks.  The media dubbed this the “Twinkie Defense,” and it proved successful, as White only got a seven-year sentence.  California eliminated its diminished-capacity defense shortly afterward.

On a more fun note, we’ll always have this scene from Ghostbusters:

That used to be a big Twinkie.  Perhaps all sides can take one last deep breath and try working together to save 18,000 jobs rather than see an American institution disappear, along with a lot of livelihoods.

Update: I updated the headline to highlight the jobs as well as the Twinkies.  Also, the jobs lost were nationwide, not in Texas, so I deleted that reference.

Update II: Like I said, I haven’t paid much attention to this fight, so I don’t have a lot of insight into whether labor or management has been more unreasonable.  However, the Teamsters’ web site seems to lay the blame on the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) for refusing to go along with the Teamsters to accept the last offer from Hostess:

In fact, when Hostess attempted to throw out its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters in court, the Teamsters fought back and won, ensuring that Hostess could not unilaterally make changes to working conditions during the several months’ long legal process that recently ended. Teamster Hostess members were allowed to decide their fate by voting on the final offer conducted by a secret mail ballot.  More than two-thirds of Hostess Teamsters members voted with 53 percent voting to approve the final offer.

The BCTGM chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. BCTGM members were told there were better solutions than the final offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist. Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

On Friday, Nov. 9, the BCTGM began to strike at some Hostess production facilities without notice to the Teamsters despite assurances they would not proceed with job actions without contacting the Teamsters Union. This unannounced action put Teamster members in the difficult position of facing picket lines without knowing their right to honor such a line without being disciplined.

As is our longstanding tradition, Teamster members by and large are honoring Bakery Worker picket lines when encountered and complying with their contractual obligations when not encountering picket lines. The BCTGM leaders are putting Teamster members in a horrible position – asking them to support a strike that will put them out of a job when they haven’t even asked all their members to go on strike.

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case.

That’s a pretty remarkable statement from the Teamsters.

Update (MKH): Just a little background. There’s a lot going on, here, though the bakers union strike was certainly the last straw for Hostess. The company has been in bankruptcy twice in the last decade, and as Allahpundit notes, the culture of organics and calorie-counting was working against them.

But the bakers union deserved to get thrown under the bus by the Teamsters because it looks like they threw the Teamsters under the bus, first. The Teamsters and the bakers worked together to come to a deal with Hostess in September. The bakers were quiet during negotiations, and apparently pulled a surprise move when they rejected the deal.

Hostess, which also owns Ding Dongs, Ho Hos, Wonder Bread and other celebrated baked goods, has been in Chapter 11 since January, its second such filing in a decade. The key parties have been two major hedge funds and two big unions, and they’ve been fighting over wages and pensions. Hostess contends givebacks are needed for the company to emerge from bankruptcy. The unions respond they’ve given up enough. Last month, Hostess made what it said was its “last, best offer.” CEO Greg Rayburn told Fortune that union rejection would result in the company immediately filing to liquidate—and putting thousands of employees out of work. Union members were faced with a Hobson’s choice: accept drastic concession or lose their jobs.

Late last Friday the largest unions—the Teamsters—announced that by a narrow vote, 53.6% to 46.4%, its Hostess rank-and-file had approved the new collective bargaining agreement. (Out of 7,900 Teamsters voting at the company, slightly more than half cast votes). Rayburn and Teamsters leadership both offered up measured words about the “difficult” decision.

But shortly thereafter, word came that the 7,000 employees of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union had rejected Hostess’ proposal. (No details of the vote were announced, though some press reports suggested there were only voice votes at locals rather than a written mail tally.) Though the leader of the bakers’ union in recent weeks had excoriated the proposal, the rejection was nonetheless curious. That’s because the bakers’ union had been quiescent for months in bankruptcy court, letting the Teamsters engage Hostess management and the hedge funds over the company’s demands to restructure by scuttling existing labor agreements.

This is what the deal looked like. It sounds like the Teamsters really did make sacrifices, and many of them were crossing the bakers’ picket line to keep the company functioning:

The proposed new labor deal consists of an immediate 8% wage cut and work rules more favorable to the company. Employer contributions for health insurance would decrease 17%. Hostess contributions to multi-employer pension plans would cease until 2015, at which point the current required level of funding would plummet from $100 million to $25 million. According to Rayburn, the proposal has been endorsed by Hostess’s key secured lenders, which are led by hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital. One estimate put cost savings for Hostess in the neighborhood of $200 million.

For their part, the unions would receive two seats on a restructured nine-member board of directors and 25% of equity. That would make the unions part of Hostess’ capital structure for the first time.

Maybe they can still come to some deal. I’m guessing after the company’s previous threats to shut down, the bakers might have thought they were bluffing. The deal the Teamsters took was painful, but it’s because the company was truly in dire straits. The roughly 6,000 bakers are really handing a raw deal to 12,000 of their colleagues. And, barring that, the brand is still worth money. It won’t immediately help those who will lose their jobs in this dispute, but Twinkies may be back owned by someone new, their labor obligations vacated, and likely in a right-to-work state.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

And those pesky Obama voters don’t think elections have consequences.

rsherwd65 on November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Elections don’t have consequences for these union workers as they are still eligible for unemployment benefits from our government. I doubt they wanted to lose their jobs, but if they were facing the prospect of not receiving unemployment benefits as well, this story probably would have ended differently. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for the union’s gamble.

Striking employees should not be eligible for unemployment after being fired.

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM

This comment is from Michelle Malkin’s article:

@James Perley: The brother of a friend works for Hostess as a truck driver. He said the union involved thought Hostess was bluffing.

Heck of a job union leaders.

PatriotGal2257 on November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Unions are un-American. And they’re not really about labor.

beatcanvas on November 16, 2012 at 11:20 AM

We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote.

Wait, what??? Now, the Teamsters want secret ballots? What happened to CARD CHECK?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM

“Above the rim”

“Adjacent to refuse is refuse.”

Nick_Angel on November 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

hahahah!

22044 on November 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Interesting fact… I used to work for a company that made polyurethane foam. There is a chemical ingredient in poly foam that is also used in the making of Twinkies. Bon appetit (while you can still get them)!

behiker on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

I hope someone is taking all this down…so the next generation of Americans will know what it was like in America before everything went to shiz. No one’s ever going to believe it.

Perhaps it’s time to buy stock in Entenmenns and Little Debbie…at least for now.

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

But I thought the Union hated the secret ballot?

catmman on November 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Call Mitt Romney. NOW!

Have Bain Capital buy up Hostess. Reorganize under new management. Hire 18,000 NEW non-union workers. I wonder if Andrea Mitchel, Ed Schultz, or Chris Matthews would ever recover from the shock.

Oh to dream a little dream…

jpmotu on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Not every idiot is a liberal, but all liberals are idiots. None more so than union leaders and supporters.

“I got a share in this job. Ten percent of nothing is—let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin’. Carry the nothin’…”

– Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton and wearer of cunning hats

Wolftech on November 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM

“I got a share in this job. Ten percent of nothing is—let me do the math here. Nothing into nothin’. Carry the nothin’…”

LOL.

mrsknightley on November 16, 2012 at 11:27 AM

SO NOW, the UNIONS want a SECRET BALLOT VOTE???

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote.

originalpechanga on November 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Yup. And they would have to show ID to vote.

Hypocrisy? Just a little, maybe>

iurockhead on November 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

We don,t need no stinking jobs.We got free health care free phones,free housing ,free food and free money.Life is good for us Obama voters.

logman1 on November 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.

Voice vote. So how many of them might have wanted to settle with Hostess, but were too intimidated to go against the union in an open voice vote? Ha!

What are the chances that the NLRB, forces the new buyer to purchase the union employees and their contracts? Can the new purchaser opt NOT to use a union labor pool?

Hill60 on November 16, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Umm.. You think the scolds on the left care about the lack of Twinkies.. Seriously, Michelle Obama and Mike Bloomberg are probably tickled TWINKIED pink.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 10:42 AM

There…I just couldn’t resist…

timberline on November 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM

So, now we will see what should have happened to GM and Chrysler when they were supposed to go through bankruptcy and the process was hijacked by Obambi.

deadite on November 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM

The process WAS hijacked, but the comparison of Hostess to the car companies is otherwise shaky. Chrysler and GM would have almost certainly been reorganized, and not liquidated, had the legal process been left to itself.

Barnestormer on November 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

This comment is from Michelle Malkin’s article:

@James Perley: The brother of a friend works for Hostess as a truck driver. He said the union involved thought Hostess was bluffing.

Heck of a job union leaders.

PatriotGal2257 on November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM

So, the union thought the judge was lying? The judge said it was the final solution. That there was no other alternative. They thought a bankruptcy judge was bluffing them?

ButterflyDragon on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Incompetent management runs business into the ground while giving itself big bonuses. Bankruptcy was inevitable…

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

There’s always a history behind the story.

Congrats Unions. You’ve just screwed your membership.

TerryW on November 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

The parasite has killed it’s Host….ess

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Ed, you say “it’s impossible to say whether the unions or the company has been unreasonable in this dispute, or whether it might be a blend of both, as is usually the case.”? As a court appointed arbitrator and forensic accountant for the private sector there is no way you can, within the larger context, say “a blend of both which is usually the case” because that’s patently wrong. Again given the larger context unions have zero concepts regarding economics and don’t move in negotiation because they have always won. Not so any longer Ed. Your statement is a non-starter. The majority voted for precisely the polar opposite of what is beginning to happen. Now we’ll all see in real time private corporate America shedding the snakeskin of union liability in Federal Bankruptcy Court regardless of interpretation. Talk to those in this arena Ed before slamming the private sector as somehow being a proponent of this vertical union demand insanity. 10-1 Hostess union comes back with hat in hand, 10-1 Mr. Reynolds will move forward with receivership liquidation. 10-1 Wal-Mart hires tens of thousands of new employees after Thanksgiving as well.

Tangerinesong on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Twinkies aren’t going anywhere. The brands will be bought by a company that can make them efficiently. However, those 18,500 union jobs are toast. Unions ALWAYS think the company is bluffing. And they are always wrong. And, as a result, those 18,500 union employees can watch their jobs move to another company in a right-to-work state.

Shump on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Regardless of which union may be more or less to blame, it was indeed ignorant union mentality (sorry for the redundancy!) that resulted in the closing. One report I read said that some of the union bakers crossed the picket lines but apparently not enough of them to make a go of it. So, I hope the teamsters and the others who didn’t vote to approve the contract or didn’t cross the picket lines, hope you’re all happier with unemployment compensation–there are no health insurance, vacation or pension benefits with that. Wonder how the BLS will try to hide that +18,000 over the next few weeks in unemployment stats. Oh yeah, and then there’s the business that Hostess’s suppliers will all be losing.

stukinIL4now on November 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM

When the Teamsters are taking management’s side – in the middle of a liberal honeymoon – that pretty much says it all.

HitNRun on November 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

So, the union thought the judge was lying? The judge said it was the final solution. That there was no other alternative. They thought a bankruptcy judge was bluffing them?

ButterflyDragon on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Yes. Union members are always predisposed to think that any financial problems are the result of the evil rich people at the top hoarding money. They never believe that a company could truly be out of money.

Shump on November 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Of course, the Union had nothing to do with it, huh?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Union Borg Workers cut off nose to spite face.

Resistance is futile…

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Incompetent management runs business into the ground while giving itself big bonuses. Bankruptcy was inevitable…

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Your “feelings” aren’t facts.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The first rule of Unions successful parasites: Do not kill your host.
Unions have never learned this.

jrgdds on November 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Now that O won a second term and I’ve become a ‘prepper’, I’m hitting the Hostess thrift shop this weekend and scoopin up bargains for my Fallout 4 shelter.

Normal breakfast: 2 Twinkies with fiber tablet and vitamin pills with powdered milk. YUM!

KirknBurker on November 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And, as a result, those 18,500 union employees can watch their jobs move to another company in a right-to-work state.

Shump on November 16, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Sweet Texas will still have twinkies!

SPIN

Spinstra on November 16, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Incompetent management union runs business into the ground while giving itself big bonuses. Bankruptcy was inevitable…

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

There is the accurate analysis. Unions have been bankrupting companies and making them leave the country for 40+ years and counting.

Sporty1946 on November 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Where’s the bailout?

KirknBurker on November 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

This is a story about the government attacking a demonizing another industry (like tobacco) at the expense of jobs!

Redglen on November 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Yet another business murdered by greed.

Pretty soon they’ll have an acronym for this sort of thing.

DBU

Death By Union

HotAirian on November 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Obama can put all those Bakers and Truck drivers to work building Bridges and Roads and Schools and Public Parks.

Grave your shovel and pick Hostess Workers.

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Hahahahahaha

It has begun.
Let it burn.

tkyang99 on November 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Unions = Communism = Destruction + Misery + Poverty…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

With Hostess shut down, does this mean that Christmas will be two-thirds canceled because there are no Ho-Hos? Not a Snowball’s chance in Hell, I suspect.

michaelo on November 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM

“Eat your carrots” — Mooch

“I’m fine with destroying the middle class – Venezuela is my model” — Hell

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Incompetent management runs business into the ground while giving itself big bonuses. Bankruptcy was inevitable…

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Typical communist talking points idiocy… Now your communist comrades at Hostess are going to suffer… It is great news indeed…

mnjg on November 16, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Of course, the Union had nothing to do with it, huh?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Both parties are at fault, it seems. I hope they’re happy.

22044 on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

To me, I’m only a bit sad about no more Ding Dongs in the future. I rarely purchased other Hostess snack items such as cupcakes, Twinkies or their bread items. It seemed to me that most of their products had an artificial taste probably due to the large amount of preservatives in each item. Even the Ding Dongs were starting to taste suspect to me, but I overcame that by eating them right out of the freezer.

I believe this is the beginning of many well-known brands that will go out of business. Whether it be food companies, major retailers, communication companies, etc., this will all play out over the next several years. For the workers in the production areas, the truck drivers in transportation, and all the other lower-lever workers in the Hostess chain, I have little or no empathy for their plight. Unions made them believe they could move up the food chain through “brotherhood.” Well, now they need to turn to their “brothers” and ask them to help pay their mortgage, car payments, etc., because they are now without a job. I am guessing the majority of the Hostess union workers were high school level at best. That is not to say that many of them didn’t work hard and put in long hours, but I am saying that did not qualify them for moving up the ladder. They deserved nothing more than to keep up with the cost of living…absolutely nothing more and nothing less.

There is a mindset in the liberal circles and the unions that is helping to bring down this country, one company or industry at a time. They all feel entitled to the same perks that higher-level workers have enjoyed for years, (e.g. fully-paid pension packages, fully-paid health insurance, extended vacation packages, etc.) without having a higher education degree. Ask any union worker and they’ll deny that is the case. Yet, they’ll fight tooth and nail for those same advantages and wages that degreed individuals enjoy and deserve for their ambitions to attend college.

I personally know of an individual living in a posh suburb in Indiana who is union to the death. This person lives in a $500,000 home (paid for I might add) and has nothing more than a GED. I know this person worked many hours in inclement weather and endured some challenging work conditions. However, this person is not entitled to the standard of living that an individual with a college degree enjoys. Ask members of SEIU and they will tell you they all deserve the upper-class standard of living. They will continue to fight to get it and they too will eventually lose their jobs. Unfortunately, as they move forward with their fantasies, many companies and brands will cease to exist. It continues to get very ugly out there.

metroryder on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

ABC news thinks it’s hilarious!

Twinkie Party: The Loss of 18,000 Hostess Jobs Is All a Big Joke to ABC News

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/11/16/twinkie-party-loss-18000-hostess-jobs-all-big-joke-abc-news#ixzz2CPBc18MK

Pork-Chop on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Twinkies – and 18000 jobs – fall victim to union-management dispute

Liberals continue to suck the joy out of life wherever they find it…

landlines on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

The Union protested the 8% paycut, and ended up with a 100% paycut.

WINNING.

portlandon on November 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM

They lost all their dough. Now they knead new jobs.

I’m so sorry.

redzap on November 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I know the point has already been made.

Teamsters: “Without complete information, BCTGM members voted by voice votes in union halls. The BCTGM reported that over 90 percent rejected the final offer and three of its units ratified the final offer.
* * *
“We may never know [what the BCTGM voters really want] unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case.”

Finally, a union, perhaps accidentally, speaking out AGAINST “Card Check.”

Ira on November 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The underlying problem is that Hostess cannot compete because of the cost of product. Our supermarket carries identical products, right down to the packaging style, that taste identical to Hostess. And are a dollar cheaper per item. But they are made in plants that simply do not have the legacy cost.

pat on November 16, 2012 at 12:00 PM

ABC news thinks it’s hilarious!

Twinkie Party: The Loss of 18,000 Hostess Jobs Is All a Big Joke to ABC News

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/11/16/twinkie-party-loss-18000-hostess-jobs-all-big-joke-abc-news#ixzz2CPBc18MK

Pork-Chop on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

What a bunch of a-holes. I dare them to try that within 10 feet of any Hostess employee who just got laid off. If there’s any karma, the ABC News dept will be decimated by layoffs during Obama’s 2nd term(actually I think they already were in the 1st term).

Doughboy on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Without much more data than this, it’s impossible to say whether the unions or the company has been unreasonable in this dispute, or whether it might be a blend of both, as is usually the case.

*sigh*

wtf has happened to this place?

Do you ever read anything but polls genius?

Tim_CA on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Hostess Bakers Union: We Reject Your Latest Offer. Hostess Final Offer: Then We’re Closing Up And You’ll Get Nothing. Bakers Union: Good! Wait, What? – Drew M.
http://minx.cc/?post=334976

A headline that sums it up nicely…

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Keep Voting Dem

Conservative4ev on November 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

They lost all their dough. Now they knead new jobs.

I’m so sorry.

redzap on November 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM

You’re on a roll.

Nick_Angel on November 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

My husband works, er, worked for Hostess. He was in the Bakers’ Union because he had to be in order to be employed. Not ALL Union Members voted for Obama and wanted this strike.

Chocktopus on November 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Liberals continue to suck the joy out of life wherever they find it…

landlines on November 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

.
What ? !

You actually had some “joy” ?

You must have been hoarding it all . . . . .

listens2glenn on November 16, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Let them eat (Gluten Free) Cake !

FlaMurph on November 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Umm.. Zippy. Don’t you have to give us odds like you did when you were working as a paid Obama shill during the election? Also, why haven’t the paid Axelrod trolls been banned already. Fellow Obama for America troll gumby seems to have been blocked, so shouldn’t his annoying colleagues be as well.

Illinidiva on November 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Of course, the Union had nothing to do with it, huh?

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM

.
Give some props to the USDA….they have a hand in this a s well.

Traditional America Must Die !!!

FlaMurph on November 16, 2012 at 12:08 PM

the brand is still worth money

Big Money.

Hostess, and the Twinkie in particular are American Icons.

Chinese Twinkies coming in 4 years to a grocer near you.

Tim_CA on November 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Hostess Bakers Union: We Reject Your Latest Offer. Hostess Final Offer: Then We’re Closing Up And You’ll Get Nothing. Bakers Union: Good! Wait, What? – Drew M.
http://minx.cc/?post=334976

workingclass artist on November 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM
More from ace:

18,500 people are going to lose their jobs because one union decided that they thought it was possible to get blood from a stone.

Yeah, and other libs thought it’s possible for Obama to turn around the economy, too.

Poor, stupid fools.

Axeman on November 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Those union bosses sure showed everyone!

Now is the UNION going to issue those unemployment checks?

GarandFan on November 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Buy it BAIN! Do it!

gatorboy on November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Crap.

No more “Twinkie Defense” in case I ever really lose it.

Shaughnessy on November 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Hostess is peanuts, now that little Bammie has been reelected, the greedy unions are setting their sights on the big enchilada: WalMart ‘Workers’ Plan Black Friday Walkout

We need an organized anti-union movement in America, starting with boycotting union businesses like GM, Chrysler, and Ford, and any retailer or service industry that’s operated by greedy unions.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Buy it BAIN! Do it!

gatorboy on November 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM

The brand-names will probably be bought by another company that will bake in Mexico. They’ll be back on the shelves in no time.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Such aplomb!

tommyhawk on November 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

totherightofthem on November 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I am behind the unions. Much better to be unemployeed with principles than employeed without principles!

obsessedinga on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

The Twinkie pack is melting in the dark
All that sweet cream filling flowing down
Someone left the pack out in the rain
I don’t think that I can take it
‘Cause it took so long to make it
And we’ll never see that company again…ohhh noooooo

The Rogue Tomato on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

obsessedinga on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Unions have all the principles of Richard Trumpka.

kingsjester on November 16, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Hostess Bakers Union: We Reject Your Latest Offer. Hostess Final Offer: Then We’re Closing Up And You’ll Get Nothing. Bakers Union: Good! Wait, What? – Drew M.

I had a problem employee once. I liked him as a person, but he was always trying to get out of assigned work and was often insubordinate.

Finally one day he refused a task that was given him and I fired him on the spot. He couldn’t believe it. He’d always gotten away with everything before and had talked himself out of so many tough situations.

Unions have been so used to getting their way. Not anymore, chumps. The Great OPM (Other People’s Money) Famine (h/t Rick Ballard at JustOneMinute for that phrase) is spreading rapidly.

Missy on November 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

but Twinkies may be back owned by someone new, their labor obligations vacated, and likely in a right-to-work state.

heck, move to texas, everyone else is…. just don’t move your commie politics with you…..

i wonder whether the one has something to say, doesnt the choom choom gang go out for twinkies afterward?

Dr. Demento on November 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

BREAKING NEWS…Obama Press Conference:

Um, with the legalization of marijuana soon becoming a reality in all 57 states at my direction, this is not the time to be closing snack factories, and so, Michelle and I don’t agree on this point when it comes to snacks, and so, I am directing my newly appointed Secretary of Bankrupt Businesses, to um, resurrect the brand with a small government-insured bailout of 30 billion dollars. This will help to preserve the fully-paid pensions of all the union workers, and so, the new company will be known as GMC#2 (Government Munchie Company) so as not to be confused with GMC#1 (Government Motors Company)

So, I’ll take questions now from my supporters…ahhh, yes Mr. Chong

metroryder on November 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Incompetent management runs business into the ground while giving itself big bonuses. Bankruptcy was inevitable…

ZippyZ on November 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Your stupidity is staggering.

I’m enjoying the pain enormously, and it’s just the very tip of the fall.

May you all suffer, in the dark/pain, you incredible fools.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:31 PM

This must be killing the Obama Admin. On the one hand, a union co. too big to fail. On the other hand, evil sugar. To bail out or not to bail out. And who to accuse of acting stupidly?

hopeful on November 16, 2012 at 12:32 PM

“Eat your carrots/apples” — Mooch

“I like the destruction of the middle class” — Hell

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Um, with the legalization of marijuana soon becoming a reality in all 57 states at my direction, this is not the time to be closing snack factories

metroryder on November 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Heh.

Tim_CA on November 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Obama loves miserable fools. They vote for the commies, every time.

May the destruction proceed so the pain will be palpable. Stupid free people always, always, always deserve the gov’t they vote for.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Whatever is Al Powell going to do?!

stvnscott on November 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM

This sounds like democrats and our fiscal cliffs crap- (can’t cut raise taxes)

Twinkie negiotiations

Union- I don’t want to cut anything

Mgt- Then we’ll go out of business

Union- Fine

Mgt- Ok! where out of business

Union- What… I didn’t… lets start over…

Danielvito on November 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I am behind the unions. Much better to be unemployeed with principles than employeed without principles!

obsessedinga on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Perchance, are you a member of a public school teachers’ union?

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Time for the unions to put their members money where their mouth is. Show us how great your workers paradise really is. Buy out Hostess and show everyone how the socialist model of business ownership really works.

HarryBackside on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

It’s too bad a company is going under, but it’s good that it’s taking 18,500 UNION jobs with it. Maybe whomever purchases them in bankruptcy will be a non-union shop.

You reap what you sow.

Common Sense on November 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Show us how great your workers paradise really is.

HarryBackside on November 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Last night, I was laughing about this cartoon that I am sooooooo loving right now:

‘Toon of the Day: Should I Stay Or Should I Go, Now?

It reminded me of the fact that, despite the fact that leftists claim that the US is so horrible without a single-payer system, free college education programmes, free housing, free vacays, free food, free wifi, free clothes, free cable, free ObamaPhones, free this and free that, we need to build a fence TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT, but all of the so-called Workers’ Paradises had/have had to build walls and electrified-fences with armed guards to KEEP PEOPLE IN.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

I’d like to see this happen more often.
If a union strikes, kill the company, put all the union members on unemployment, then restart the under a new name, buy back all the former assets, and start over with no union – and prior union members who apply for jobs go to the bottom of the hiring list.

dentarthurdent on November 16, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I hope someone is taking all this down…so the next generation of Americans will know what it was like in America before everything went to shiz. No one’s ever going to believe it.

Perhaps it’s time to buy stock in Entenmenns and Little Debbie…at least for now.

JetBoy on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

This is no different that what happened to Eastern Airlines. I remember the Pilot’s Union out in front of the Airports walking with signs when the Union reps came out and told them that the company was bust and to go home. The shock, the blank looks, the disbelief. After all, it was Eastern Airlines!

The fact is that Unions are simply company killers. Like Obama voters, they think that there is an endless money supply that those evil capitalists are hiding from their workers and with enough force, they will disgorge.

When the body dies, the parasites never try to rethink their strategy, they just seek the next host to consume.

Bulletchaser on November 16, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Union- What… I didn’t… lets start over…

Danielvito on November 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Of course – the Dem way – automatic do over for all Dems who screw up.

dentarthurdent on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

It’s KING DONS, not Ding Dongs…

spinach.chin on November 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM

RWM, you must write books.

Schadenfreude on November 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Elections don’t have consequences for these union workers as they are still eligible for unemployment benefits from our government. I doubt they wanted to lose their jobs, but if they were facing the prospect of not receiving unemployment benefits as well, this story probably would have ended differently. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for the union’s gamble.

Striking employees should not be eligible for unemployment after being fired.

weaselyone on November 16, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Unemployment benefits are funded through employer payroll taxes. If the state funds get low, they borrow from the federal share of the unemployment taxes. Then they turn around and bill the employer at the end of the year an extra tax to pay to help the state pay back what they borrowed from the fed’s fund.

And at the end of the year, they assess the payroll tax for unemployment based on what the state incurred in the past year and whether or not the employer had a lot of hits against the fund.

Filing all of those damn forms every quarter at the state and federal level was a nightmare. I hated it.

So unless the newly laid off union worker and all of the other casualties of union war at Hostess run out of their unemployment benefits, the taxpayers are not yet on the hook. They will be, however, if these people remain unemployed and then qualify for food stamps and other assistance.

This reminds me so much of the idiots in the unions that ran Eastern Airlines out of business.

karenhasfreedom on November 16, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Last night, I was laughing about this cartoon that I am sooooooo loving right now:

‘Toon of the Day: Should I Stay Or Should I Go, Now?

It reminded me of the fact that, despite the fact that leftists claim that the US is so horrible without a single-payer system, free college education programmes, free housing, free vacays, free food, free wifi, free clothes, free cable, free ObamaPhones, free this and free that, we need to build a fence TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT, but all of the so-called Workers’ Paradises had/have had to build walls and electrified-fences with armed guards to KEEP PEOPLE IN.

Resist We Much on November 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Notice that all the people running are productive Whites?

Bulletchaser on November 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

BREAKING NEWS…Obama Press Conference:

Um, with the legalization of marijuana soon becoming a reality in all 57 states at my direction, this is not the time to be closing snack factories, and so, Michelle and I don’t agree on this point when it comes to snacks, and so, I am directing my newly appointed Secretary of Bankrupt Businesses, to um, resurrect the brand with a small government-insured bailout of 30 billion dollars. This will help to preserve the fully-paid pensions of all the union workers, and so, the new company will be known as GMC#2 (Government Munchie Company) so as not to be confused with GMC#1 (Government Motors Company)

So, I’ll take questions now from my supporters…ahhh, yes Mr. Chong

metroryder on November 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Because so much of welfare spending in America goes toward junk food like Twinkies, -this would be simply eliminating the middleman.

slickwillie2001 on November 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Come to Texas, we want you.

whope on November 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

behiker on November 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Simethicone, perhaps. The same stuff in Gas-X too. It has industrial, food and medicinal uses.

Corporal Tunnel on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Just leave your liberal ideas at the door, please.

whope on November 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

It’s too bad a company is going under, but it’s good that it’s taking 18,500 UNION jobs with it. Maybe whomever purchases them in bankruptcy will be a non-union shop.

You reap what you sow.

Common Sense on November 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Actually if you read any of the articles about this, it appears that the baker’s union and teamsters each had about 7K members, so there appears that 4K employees were non union. They are the true casualties.

karenhasfreedom on November 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

lol, this summer, I had the biggest garden I have ever had, and I am doubling the size next year. Somehow, though, I can’t get myself to buy arugula seeds. The stuff is tainted, as far as I am concerned.

cptacek on November 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM

One side benefit of these idiots. Now there are about 14,000 union jobs that have vanished, and with them, the monthly dues that somehow manage to find their way into democrat candidate campaign funds.

karenhasfreedom on November 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I am behind the unions. Much better to be unemployeed with principles than employeed without principles!

obsessedinga on November 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM

.
James Earl Jones quote from the Yellow Pages commercials:

“More choices”.

listens2glenn on November 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM

but the unemployment rate will go down

royzer on November 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4