Goodbye Twinkies.

[kandrathe]

The company and their striking bakers couldn't reach a deal -- and they were already on a downward spiral. 18,500 people lose their jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20364595

I was more a Little Debbie guy anyway. --> http://www.littledebbie.com/

[DeeBye]

Tallahassee is gonna be pissed.

edit: http://i.imgur.com/c3LQa.jpg

[shoju]

What are we going to eat when we drop the bombs? Are we just stuck with cockroaches now?

[NiteFox]

Tallahassee is gonna be pissed.

edit: http://i.imgur.com/c3LQa.jpg

Funnily enough, this is exactly what I was thinking.

[FireIceTalon]

Just another day in the epic failure that is capitalism. Nothing new here.

[bldavis]

capitalism is one thing, idiot union screwing over an entire company is another
Hostess had offered a contract that would allow them to stay open and keep their jobs, but the union decided that not losing wages was more important than saving a company and jobs

[FireIceTalon]

capitalism is one thing, idiot union screwing over an entire company is another
Hostess had offered a contract that would allow them to stay open and keep their jobs, but the union decided that not losing wages was more important than saving a company and jobs

This is nonsense.

More like corporate greed being more important than the livelihood of workers and screwing them over - business as usual in other words. It is just more proof that the reconciliation between labor and capital is a fallacy - unions and government institutions in general are not problems, they are symptoms of a much deeper problem, that problem being capitalism and its irreconcilable class antagonisms.

[kandrathe]

capitalism is one thing, idiot union screwing over an entire company is another
Hostess had offered a contract that would allow them to stay open and keep their jobs, but the union decided that not losing wages was more important than saving a company and jobs

Times change. They didn't really innovate, so they died. Part of the beauty of our system is that we the consumers choose the winners and losers. We've voted with our wallets for some number of years now that sugar, fat, and preservatives do not a snack food make. I'm not a food Nazi, but even I have chosen to feed my kids things like grapes, bananas, and strawberries when they are in season.

[bldavis]

oh im not claiming capitalism has no part in this, but it is not only capitalism
the fact is that the company tried to stay open though cutting pay, but the union went on strike to protect the higher wages
Hostess has already made a deal with the teamsters, and if the bakery workers union had played ball, they would still be open and those jobs would still be available
but the union decided to be ...well a union and in turn ignored the deadline, and screwing over their own union dues paying members

i am all for healthy eating, but not everyone is health conscious.
they did not adapt, which led to the bankruptcy in the first place, but union not playing ball and accepting a 8% pay cut in order to keep jobs cost the company as well as the employees who are now mostly middle-aged bakery workers....guess what..that isnt a high demand skill set...

if it was purely on Hostess, i would agree capitalism at work and go on mourning my loss of occasional Twinkies, but this wasnt purely capitalism. this was union idiots running rampant and dues paying members cow-towing to the union line

[FireIceTalon]

Again, capitalism, not unions, is the problem. Unions exist because capitalism does, in an attempt (if a futile one) to give the workers some protection.

It was purely on Hostess, because the profits for the multi-gazillionaire CEO's and shareholders of Hostess are more important than the table scraps the employees get, in a capitalist system. Unions have little relevance here in the big picture of things, because they too, like governments, are subservient to the interests of private capital.

You don't get rid of the unions or the welfare state, you get rid of the material conditions that cause and necessitate them in the first place: capitalism. Much in the same way you don't try to cure cancer with pain killers.

[Jester]

The company and their striking bakers couldn't reach a deal -- and they were already on a downward spiral. 18,500 people lose their jobs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20364595

I was more a Little Debbie guy anyway. --> http://www.littledebbie.com/

The twinkie was an icon of my childhood. Not because I ever ate the things (I'm pretty sure my lifetime consumption is one), but because they had such awesome cameos in Ghostbusters and UHF.

Sad to see it go.

-Jester

[Jester]

It was purely on Hostess, because the profits for the multi-gazillionaire CEO's and shareholders of Hostess are more important than the table scraps the employees get, in a capitalist system.

Do you actually know anything about Hostess? Stock price, dividends, executive compensation, debt structure, sales, and so on? Whether they were actually earning any of these profits you speak of? It sounds like you're just generalizing for all companies, as if all CEOs and shareholders are "multi-gazillionaires," and if they ever shut down operations, it must be capitalist greed that does it. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

The company had gone bankrupt once already. How were they supposed to keep paying their workers the same wage without funds? The shareholders were already wiped out once, and now their replacements were as well.

I'm happy to see unions occasionally play hardball. But part of playing is that sometimes? You lose at hardball.

-Jester

[bldavis]

Again, capitalism, not unions, is the problem. Unions exist because capitalism does, in an attempt (if a futile one) to give the workers some protection.

It was purely on Hostess, because the profits for the multi-gazillionaire CEO's and shareholders of Hostess are more important than the table scraps the employees get, in a capitalist system. Unions have little relevance here in the big picture of things, because they too, like governments, are subservient to the interests of private capital.

You don't get rid of the unions or the welfare state, you get rid of the material conditions that cause and necessitate them in the first place: capitalism. Much in the same way you don't try to cure cancer with pain killers.

where did i say get rid of unions?
and where did i say capitalism had no part in this?
in fact i stated it was due in part to capitalism and the changing economy.

but in this case it WAS the union that was stubborn and did not accept the plan that would keep jobs.
and now that the plant is closed, the union wants the deal.

you can defend the union all you want, but no matter what you say, nothing can change the fact that in this case, it is the union that is at fault. not completely, but they are far from blameless.
it was a 8% pay cut. if you make $30.00/hr it would cut you to $27.60/hr
sounds HORRIBLE doesnt it?
how does unemployment sound?
there was also a 20% increase in benefits cost. would you rather that or the 100%+ that you now have to pay if you were an employee?

right, i forgot, the strike was all due to capitalism and nothing to do with the union not accepting a deal that would keep 18k+ jobs for union members, as well as the other union employees, non union employees, as well as all of their suppliers that may need to cut back now.

[FireIceTalon]

Again, capitalism, not unions, is the problem. Unions exist because capitalism does, in an attempt (if a futile one) to give the workers some protection.

It was purely on Hostess, because the profits for the multi-gazillionaire CEO's and shareholders of Hostess are more important than the table scraps the employees get, in a capitalist system. Unions have little relevance here in the big picture of things, because they too, like governments, are subservient to the interests of private capital.

You don't get rid of the unions or the welfare state, you get rid of the material conditions that cause and necessitate them in the first place: capitalism. Much in the same way you don't try to cure cancer with pain killers.

where did i say get rid of unions?
and where did i say capitalism had no part in this?
in fact i stated it was due in part to capitalism and the changing economy.

but in this case it WAS the union that was stubborn and did not accept the plan that would keep jobs.
and now that the plant is closed, the union wants the deal.

you can defend the union all you want, but no matter what you say, nothing can change the fact that in this case, it is the union that is at fault. not completely, but they are far from blameless.
it was a 8% pay cut. if you make $30.00/hr it would cut you to $27.60/hr
sounds HORRIBLE doesnt it?
how does unemployment sound?
there was also a 20% increase in benefits cost. would you rather that or the 100%+ that you now have to pay if you were an employee?

right, i forgot, the strike was all due to capitalism and nothing to do with the union not accepting a deal that would keep 18k+ jobs for union members, as well as the other union employees, non union employees, as well as all of their suppliers that may need to cut back now.

I'm not defending unions, I like them about as much as I like welfare states, borders, governments or other instruments of class based systems (which isn't very much, in case you didn't know). I am attacking capitalism, which more working people need to start doing if they know what's good for them.

Blaming unions here is just parroting right-wing propaganda, but has little basis to reality - it's like blaming Chinese workers for outsourcing of American jobs. You are having difficulty distinguishing between cause and symptom it seems. It's time for people to stop scapegoating other workers (union or non-union, domestic or foreign), immigrants, politicians, and start looking at the reality of the system they live in, and recognize who their true oppressors are. Workers shouldn't have to choose between ANY pay cut or unemployment to begin with, because of the social relationships that result from private property. It isn't due to capitalism in part, it is due to capitalism entirely, and its volatile processes.

Bottomline: The livelihood and dignity of people is important. The maximization of profits for private CEO's and shareholders is NOT. Not in the least bit.

[FireIceTalon]

It was purely on Hostess, because the profits for the multi-gazillionaire CEO's and shareholders of Hostess are more important than the table scraps the employees get, in a capitalist system.

Do you actually know anything about Hostess? Stock price, dividends, executive compensation, debt structure, sales, and so on? Whether they were actually earning any of these profits you speak of? It sounds like you're just generalizing for all companies, as if all CEOs and shareholders are "multi-gazillionaires," and if they ever shut down operations, it must be capitalist greed that does it. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

The company had gone bankrupt once already. How were they supposed to keep paying their workers the same wage without funds? The shareholders were already wiped out once, and now their replacements were as well.

I'm happy to see unions occasionally play hardball. But part of playing is that sometimes? You lose at hardball.

-Jester

The CEO of Hostess makes 2.2 million a year (it was only 750,000 but he recently got a 300% pay increase, go figure), average Hostess worker makes 43,000 a year and wants to cut their salaries further but will be damned if he takes a cut himself.

Looks like corporate greed to me; oh wait, that's because it is. It is more profitable apparently for Hostess to close up shop then meet the workers demands, and many Wall Street hedge funders that have equity in Hostess have made millions in recent years through cutting workers pensions and salaires - this is fact. The CEO can get a 300% pay increase while cutting worker wages by 10%. But that isn't corporate greed, right?

You will get no sympathies for Hostess (or corporations in general) from me. You can try Kandrathe or Ashock though, I'm sure you will find plenty of tears to go around there.

I wonder how much dough Hostess and their Wall Street shareholder goons are going to make giving 18k+ workers the hatchet then liquidating the companies assets. Should be some hefty little checks for the parasite class.

[bldavis]

i have a question for you


where the fuck do you live?

i have lived and dealt with capitalism my whole life, i have gone through losing my job due to the plant being shutdown
my family has had to close up shop on its landscaping business due to a shite economy
i have worked for free just to keep the company afloat at times, and you are telling me that the workers shouldnt have to pick between losing a little off thier paycheck and losing their jobs...

i find that rather amusing...that i am the one saying hey, the worker has some stake in the success in the business, and that if need be, might have to make a minor sacrifice in order to keep their livelihood.
i didnt get a chance to even consider losing my job or losing some pay.
if i had, i would have taken an 8% pay cut as long as it meant i kept putting food on my families table

you hate welfare states, well guess what is happening to these workers now.
unemployment with little chance of rehiring due to limited cross training outside of mass bakeries.
if you work for a struggling company, under our current economic system, you either will have to make sacrifices or you need to GTFO early and cut your losses

if we were a socialist state, maybe this wouldnt be an issue
but we arent, we are capitialist.

i will admit, the cutting of payroll and liquidating of assets may bring a fair chunk of money, but how much of that is going to pay off debt?
how much of that is going to pay for unemployment for the workers? not to mention the broken contracts with the unions. you have not only the bakery workers union but at least one other (the teamsters) that are suddenly jobless with this company.
somehow i doubt there will be anyone getting uber rich off this

you can spin conspiracy theroies all you want, but can you truly deny that if the union HAD gone with the deal (that they are now asking for) Hostess would have stayed open?
yes they are struggling, most businesses are in this economy. yes they had bad debt due to management fuck ups, again most companies have them at some point.

i am not saying Hostess is blameless (god i feel like a broken record) but they are not alone in the blame
a union is supposed to look after its members, after all that is why you pay dues
if i was part of a union, i would have urged the leadership to take the deal so i could still have a job. or better yet not joined a union in the first place cause when i have, they have just taken money and not done much for me. i have honestly been treated better by non-union workplaces than at union ones

[FireIceTalon]

i have a question for you

where the fuck do you live?

This doesn't matter. But planet Earth if you must know.

i have lived and dealt with capitalism my whole life, i have gone through losing my job due to the plant being shutdown
my family has had to close up shop on its landscaping business due to a shite economy
i have worked for free just to keep the company afloat at times, and you are telling me that the workers shouldnt have to pick between losing a little off thier paycheck and losing their jobs...

Yes, that is what I am telling you.

i find that rather amusing...that i am the one saying hey, the worker has some stake in the success in the business, and that if need be, might have to make a minor sacrifice in order to keep their livelihood.
i didnt get a chance to even consider losing my job or losing some pay.
if i had, i would have taken an 8% pay cut as long as it meant i kept putting food on my families table

Indeed, you have to do what you have to to take care of your family. However...

The worker has NO stake in the success of the company, because the worker does not own the means to production, and thus has to sell his/her labor as a commodity to a parasite capitalist class that does own the MoP, in order to survive. If you are happy with table scraps and taking paycuts while the boss reaps surplus value from YOUR labor, and to add insult to injury increases his own pay by 300%, then I guess you enjoy being a slave. Well, I don't. "Those who don't move, don't notice their chains" - Rosa Luxemburg

you hate welfare states, well guess what is happening to these workers now.
unemployment with little chance of rehiring due to limited cross training outside of mass bakeries.
if you work for a struggling company, under our current economic system, you either will have to make sacrifices or you need to GTFO early and cut your losses

Which for me, is enough to say FUCK this system. I don't own private property or the MoP, so there is no reason for me to be an apologist for capitalism. I'm not an anti-capitalist for the hell of it, I am one because it isn't in my objective class interests to be otherwise (just like it isn't in the objective interests for a CEO to be a socialist). And from what I can gather, it isn't in your objective class interest either.

Welfare states are a byproduct of capitalist society, a concession the ruling class made to discourage worker revolution, and nothing more. A welfare state and socialism are not the same thing at all (though many people seem to think they are), because the former still allow exploitation to occur, and even the benefits it does provide are cosmetic - they can be cut back through austerity at any time or even be destroyed completely; which is what is happening all over the world right now. It is just another form of charity (but through the State instead of private institutions). I'm a communist and a humanitarian - I'm not interested in charity or philanthropy, I am interested in social security, economic and social stability, solidarity and for everyone being able to live with dignity, certainty, and their livelihoods intact - free of exploitation.

if we were a socialist state, maybe this wouldnt be an issue
but we arent, we are capitialist.

Oxymoron. There can't be such thing as a socialist state. Capitalism is global, therefore socialism cannot exist until capitalism is completely destroyed. As long as nation-states, borders, governments and classes exist, socialism does not and cannot develop. But at least you recognize that if society was socialist, this wouldn't be an issue - that is a start. The only difference between a worker and a socialist is that the latter has an intellectual understanding and awareness of his/her social being in relation to the productive forces/circumstances in the world.

i will admit, the cutting of payroll and liquidating of assets may bring a fair chunk of money, but how much of that is going to pay off debt?
how much of that is going to pay for unemployment for the workers? not to mention the broken contracts with the unions. you have not only the bakery workers union but at least one other (the teamsters) that are suddenly jobless with this company.
somehow i doubt there will be anyone getting uber rich off this

Who knows, but more importantly, WHO THE FUCK CARES? The CEO's exploit workers, and workers should have no sympathy for them at all. I hope Hostess CEO's have debt up the fucking ass, so they can get a little taste of what it is like to live like us for a while. But I doubt that is the case. I have to ask though, why do you have sympathy for them? They sure as hell don't have any for the 18k workers they are laying off, I can promise you that. All they care about is keeping their pockets fat as possible.

you can spin conspiracy theroies all you want, but can you truly deny that if the union HAD gone with the deal (that they are now asking for) Hostess would have stayed open?
yes they are struggling, most businesses are in this economy. yes they had bad debt due to management fuck ups, again most companies have them at some point.

Conspiracy theories? LOL. There is nothing but truth in everything I have said comrade. Businesses aren't struggling man. WORKERS and their families are struggling, and will continue to do so as long as this volatile and anti-human system is in place.

i am not saying Hostess is blameless (god i feel like a broken record) but they are not alone in the blame
a union is supposed to look after its members, after all that is why you pay dues
if i was part of a union, i would have urged the leadership to take the deal so i could still have a job. or better yet not joined a union in the first place cause when i have, they have just taken money and not done much for me. i have honestly been treated better by non-union workplaces than at union ones

Which just proves that unions aren't very useful anymore (and haven't really been for a long time), since at the end of the day, they usually submit to the demands of private capital. In this case, they didn't, but whether they do or don't makes little difference in the big picture. As long as capitalism exists, workers are going to get fucked. Hostess may be going under, but all its Wall Street shareholders and CEO are set for life regardless, because of all the surplus value they have extracted from the labor of working men and women for over 75 years. And if they do have debt, good. They don't have my sympathies (only the workers do). Fuck em'.

[bldavis]

do i feel for the workers? yes
do i think they got screwed over by the union? yes
do i think hostess fucked as well? yes
there...what i believe is out and as far as i am concerned, we dont need to keep going in circles

/wave

[Rhydderch Hael]

You know, I never bought into the Mayan Calendar thingy.

But look at what has happened in 2012. Andy Griffith dies. Green Day cancels all its tours. Then this...

These are the three portents so-engraved into the calendar stone.

[DeeBye]

But look at what has happened in 2012. Andy Griffith dies. Green Day cancels all its tours. Then this...

These are the three portents so-engraved into the calendar stone.

You forgot to mention the NHL lockout. That one has me crying myself to sleep every night since October 11.