# Hostess going out of business



## Mexi (Nov 16, 2012)

Twinkies-maker Hostess going out of business - Business - CBC News

so goodbye to:










the 17 year old stoner inside me will miss you (not to mention the 18,500 job losses too, if only they'd waited for marijuana legalization to take effect in CO)


----------



## Webmaestro (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah, the job losses are the real crapper here. I haven't eaten any of their products (that I know of) since my early 20's, so from that standpoint I don't much care.

But the jobs... man, I wouldn't wish that on anyone...


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 16, 2012)

As much as I enjoyed a pack of their cupcakes, cannot stand wonder bread.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Based on that article, kind of hard to feel bad for the employee's when they caused it.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Based on that article, kind of hard to feel bad for the employee's when they caused it.




Good ole unions, too busy whining for more money to realize their employers actually don't have it


----------



## thedonal (Nov 16, 2012)

Never lived in the us, but always remember seeing ads for Hostess Twinkies and Cupcakes in imported comics as a kid.

Another era gone!


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Good ole unions, too busy whining for more money to realize their employers actually don't have it



Yeah, that being said unions on a grander scale are a good thing (employee's in the working class have zero leverage without them), but they should really work more with the employers to figure out if they are being paid unfairly or just all they can afford to pay out in the first place. 

Hostess cupcakes are amazing...and so bad for you.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah unions have toouch power now imo


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Meh... Fuck the snacky cakes... I'm with the first poster. Sucks ppl are gonna lose jobs.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Yeah, that being said unions on a grander scale are a good thing (employee's in the working class have zero leverage without them), but they should really work more with the employers to figure out if they are being paid unfairly or just all they can afford to pay out in the first place.
> 
> Hostess cupcakes are amazing...and so bad for you.



Unions, as I see them, were a requisite of the past. Nowadays you just have postal workers whining about not getting paid enough.. Postal workers make over 20$ an hour. To deliver your mail... And have great benefits.

Workers are no longer being literally worked to death (in the first world), and most union jobs pay quite well for their skill set. It is shameful to say, my starting wage, as an engineer, was comparable to a fucking mailmans. . I have known engineers who started at less than the mailman. That is where unions get you fucked (and why engineers are dumb in never having become a union )


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

^The make that much? What do you have to do to be a postal worker? Switching careers immediately... 

(I am also an engineer  )


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah mail workers here get paid quite a bit for what is relatively unskilled labour. I think at seniority they get paid 60k/yr. I understand paying someone a decent wage, but paying someone 60k a year just to deliver mail is..not a recipe for success


----------



## ROAR (Nov 16, 2012)

Money was the worst idea ever


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 16, 2012)

This sucks, economically, but it reminds me of another thing that is also going on. The owner of several denny's chains is charging a 5% surcharge for obamacare(insisting that this isn't actually "raising" prices) and making it so no employee is able to get above 28 hours(so he dont gotta buy that insurance). Anyway, Hostess products have never set well with me, but i feel for the people who now have no jobs, and their families.

Denny's franchisee to add surcharge for Obamacare - MarketWatch
Obamacare backlash: Denny


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

I don't know how that works involving franchises exactly, but per business I think you have to have a minimum of 50 employee's for pretty much any of 'Obamacare' taxes to actually phase you. I don't see that many people working at a single Denny's, especially full time. Sounds more like excuses to me, could be wrong though. 

I doubt that was relevant to this situation however.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Corrosion said:


> This sucks, economically, but it reminds me of another thing that is also going on. The owner of several denny's chains is charging a 5% surcharge for obamacare(insisting that this isn't actually "raising" prices) and making it so no employee is able to get above 28 hours(so he dont gotta buy that insurance). Anyway, Hostess products have never set well with me, but i feel for the people who now have no jobs, and their families.
> 
> Denny's franchisee to add surcharge for Obamacare - MarketWatch
> Obamacare backlash: Denny



Why are so many ppl doing dumb shit like this? They're convinced Obamacare is going to cost them more money and/or make stuff worse so they're going out of their way to piss off other people seemingly as a means of expressing their own distaste for the president. Sounds like some petty, spiteful, middle school girl shit... 

Are you people really that fuckin' mad?

Papa Johns talking about laying ppl off just because Obama won... Grow the fuck up, people. If it didn't look like racism before, they're certainly not doing a good job of making it look like anything else at this point. 

Did this happen when G.W. Bush's Darwin-Awards-Nominee ass won twice? 

/rant


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> G.W. Bush's Darwin-Awards-Nominee



He's no Darwin award nominee, he's a fucking ninja. Haven't you seen the shoe dodge?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)




----------



## synrgy (Nov 16, 2012)

Hostess Executives provided themselves 70% raises last year. Today they announce they're closing the company because their rank-and-file workers refused to take an 8% pay cut, after already taking drastic cuts in 2004. Think about that.

Stop blaming workers for fighting against the worst aspect of capitalism, which is to say the prevalence of the bottom line over the lives of human capital. It is not entitlement to expect people running a business to have to bear the _full and proper cost_ of running that business. If you can't afford to take care of your employees, your business plan is flawed. Not your workers.

IMHO, the owners of Hostess are making a thinly veiled political statement.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why are so many ppl doing dumb shit like this? They're convinced Obamacare is going to cost them more money and/or make stuff worse so they're going out of their way to piss off other people seemingly as a means of expressing their own distaste for the president. Sounds like some petty, spiteful, middle school girl shit...
> 
> Are you people really that fuckin' mad?
> 
> ...



It especially looks bad when we have a couple years before all of it is completely in place and, post election, nothing's different from a month ago politically/legally. There is literally no reason for it at the moment and probably at all.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

@Carl - Poppycock... Clearly we should all work in sweat shops and be glad to have the opportunity available to us.



flint757 said:


> It especially looks bad when we have a couple years before all of it is completely in place and, post election, nothing's different from a month ago politically/legally. There is literally no reason for it at the moment and probably at all.



It's mind blowing to me... I know things haven't completely bounced back the way everyone expected it to. But if both candidates had said in 2008 that it was going to take more than a term, ppl woulda flipped out about that too. This weird orchestrated effort by larger businesses to play the damsel in distress card immediately after Obama's election is pretty fuckin' weak and anyone falling for it... Well I got a bridge to sell ya! 

EDIT: I'm not sure if it's necessarily "orchestrated," but I see a lot of businesses pulling the same dumb shit and it's convenient that they're all experiencing such financial turmoil not after a fiscal quarter, not a fiscal year--but an election...


----------



## Fat-Elf (Nov 16, 2012)

So does this mean that I will never eat a Twinkie in my life?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Hostess Executives provided themselves 70% raises last year. Today they announce they're closing the company because their rank-and-file workers refused to take an 8% pay cut, after already taking drastic cuts in 2004. Think about that.
> 
> Stop blaming workers for fighting against the worst aspect of capitalism, which is to say the prevalence of the bottom line over the lives of human capital. It is not entitlement to expect people running a business to have to bear the _full and proper cost_ of running that business. If you can't afford to take care of your employees, your business plan is flawed. Not your workers.
> 
> IMHO, the owners of Hostess are making a thinly veiled political statement.



I agree, my original point was simply that I wasn't shocked they went under when everyone stopped working and I don't think the workers were all that surprised either honestly. 

Bankruptcy at that level isn't exactly like going broke either, sadly. They will still be alright, the executives that is.

[EDIT]



Fat-Elf said:


> So does this mean that I will never eat a Twinkie in my life?



Plenty of knock offs.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Didn't you see Zombieland, fool? Even they found Twinkies...


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 16, 2012)

Fat-Elf said:


> So does this mean that I will never eat a Twinkie in my life?



There will still be perfectly edible Twinkies available on eBay in 50 years. I'm tempted to buy a box myself and keep it in the closet as an investment


----------



## misingonestring (Nov 16, 2012)

Fuck...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> There will still be perfectly edible Twinkies available on eBay in 50 years. I'm tempted to buy a box myself and keep it in the closet as an investment



Auction that shit off in 15 years...

"New in box. 25 Twinkies... Going once... Going twice... SOLD to the portly fellow in the back!"


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 16, 2012)

@ Flint, The reason i posted this as relevant is it is an opposite case of the employers putting major strains on their employees. Without unions, many people DO get taken advantage of, without any proper outlet or recourse of action. However, in the case of Hostess, the union overstepped it's bounds, as has been the case in many times past. Just contrasting two similar, yet opposite situations that are current... employees f'in a biz, and biz goin right back at their workers. And while i realize that it's a 50+ employee deal, this guy owns a lot of denny's so he is subject to obamacare...\

As for Twinkies, recipes exist for them, so you could always make your own...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Home made Twinkies... 

This is the best Friday ever... 

Let's see... They played Jungle Love in the office cafeteria... And now I know that home made Twinkies recipes exist somewhere on the internet. That has to be a cheaper solution anyway and you won't be ingesting whatever polymer they use to make those things last forever...


----------



## synrgy (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I agree, my original point was simply that I wasn't shocked they went under when everyone stopped working and I don't think the workers were all that surprised either honestly.



Agreed. My post wasn't directed at you; just the general/typical union backlash I'm seeing over my net feeds today.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 16, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Hostess Executives provided themselves 70% raises last year. Today they announce they're closing the company because their rank-and-file workers refused to take an 8% pay cut, after already taking drastic cuts in 2004. Think about that.
> 
> Stop blaming workers for fighting against the worst aspect of capitalism, which is to say the prevalence of the bottom line over the lives of human capital. It is not entitlement to expect people running a business to have to bear the _full and proper cost_ of running that business. If you can't afford to take care of your employees, your business plan is flawed. Not your workers.
> 
> IMHO, the owners of Hostess are making a thinly veiled political statement.



I'd still rather a job at 8% less, than no job out on my ass. If it is anything like factory work in Canada, it is grossly overpaid anyway.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

^ I can see where you're coming from to an extent, but at the same time if you let someone cut your pay every time they see fit lest you be out of a job, are you really looking out for yourself and/or whatever family you may have?

I understand it's important to be employed, but when your pay can be manipulated at will (which I suppose may be the case for any number of reasons), it's not really to your advantage to stay with such a company.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why are so many ppl doing dumb shit like this? They're convinced Obamacare is going to cost them more money and/or make stuff worse so they're going out of their way to piss off other people seemingly as a means of expressing their own distaste for the president. Sounds like some petty, spiteful, middle school girl shit...


 
I've been involved in purchasing the healthcare insurance for our employees here at work serveral times over the past few years and since Obamacare passed insurance rates have gone up quite a bit. There are ways to keep the cost of monthly premiums down, but they involve taking less coverage, so you either cut into your coverage or cut into your bank balance.

Keep in mind that insurance is a form of risk management, and the insurance companies are covering their own risks, too. When they see that they have to provide coverage for many people they were previously able to pass over due to preexisting conditions or having hit their lifetime coverage cap, they know it will cost them more money. And you can bet that they will spread those increased costs around to their customers.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

I sometimes wonder how truthful insurance companies are about that sort of thing considering everyone knows how much they pay in insurance, how much that should total to over the period of time between incidents and how stingy they are about giving you back your own damn money when a situation arises in which the money you've been putting away for just such an event is actually needed. But that's another topic... 

Are the higher taxes going to bankrupt you? Or do you feel like you're more entitled to a steady cash flow than your employees? That's not an attack, it's a serious question.

I believe the saying goes... "You gotta pay the cost to be the boss."


----------



## synrgy (Nov 16, 2012)

The plot thickens.

Hostess Continues Pattern Of Misinformation - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee



> In fact, according to the company's 1113 filing with the bankruptcy court earlier this year as well as its last/best/final and non-negotiable proposal to its BCTGM-represented workers, the company was planning to close at least nine bakeries as part of its reorganization plan, although the company refused to disclose which bakeries it intended to close. This is in addition to the three bakeries that were to be closed as a result of the company's planned sale of its Merita division.
> 
> Moreover, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was quoted in a November 13 KMOX-CBS St. Louis article stating, "I was told months ago they were planning on closing the site in St. Louis And there was no indication at that time it had anything to do with the strike the workers were waging."


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 16, 2012)

When CEOs accept raises and cut their employees salaries, the system is more than broken. In fact, how can they justify gaining a pay increase if their company is already in the shitter? How many people could have been paid if they hadn't taken more themselves?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Oh c'mon now... They *had* to take those raises *because* the company was going down, you see. How else would they maintain a fancy lifestyle afterwards?

DUH!



They'll just deal with whatever backlash comes from this, start another company and do it all over again.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Wow they have a lot of balls to lie so openly about it in the first place.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I sometimes wonder how truthful insurance companies are about that sort of thing considering everyone knows how much they pay in insurance, how much that should total to over the period of time between incidents and how stingy they are about giving you back your own damn money when a situation arises in which the money you've been putting away for just such an event is actually needed. But that's another topic...


 

As you state, this is a completely separate issue, and it is a whole rabbit hole of its own, so I'll leave this alone.




Konfyouzd said:


> Are the higher taxes going to bankrupt you? Or do you feel like you're more entitled to a steady cash flow than your employees? That's not an attack, it's a serious question.
> 
> I believe the saying goes... "You gotta pay the cost to be the boss."


 
If this last part is addressed to me, then you misunderstand. I do not own the company, I just work here. The company I work for is is an engineering company that uses good benefits to help attract top talent, so we provide FAR better benefits than Obamacare mandates and have done so much longer than I have been here. So your question really doesn't apply to my situation. I merely explained why healthcare premiums have gone up.

You and I don't have to like it or reason behind it, but that's how it is. You and I can only choose either 1. to pay for the health coverage, or 2. not to pay for the health coverage.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

A co-worker of mine brought up exactly what you were talking about probably a month or so ago. A lot of companies offer insurance to attract top talent, it was never profitable. Even if the cost of it goes up, if they want to keep hiring top talent, they will have to continue offering it or risk missing good opportunities.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but most of the companies we hear bitching aren't exactly recruiting your 'youngest and brightest'. They are Papa Johns, Denny's, factories, etc.. Positions that even before 'Obamacare' the employers have tried to pay out as little as they possibly can. The only difference is now they have a rally cry.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

I paid for healthcare anyway so I never gave 2 fuck about any of this... 

I just think it's a strange justification that beacuse ANY person is the boss and they have to take a loss then their employees have to as well. That's the cost of being the boss... Don't like it? Quit and be a fuckin' grunt.



flint757 said:


> A co-worker of mine brought up exactly what you were talking about probably a month or so ago. A lot of companies offer insurance to attract top talent, it was never profitable. Even if the cost of it goes up, if they want to keep hiring top talent, they will have to continue offering it or risk missing good opportunities.
> 
> I don't know if anyone noticed, but most of the companies we hear bitching aren't exactly recruiting your 'youngest and brightest'. They are Papa Johns, Denny's, factories. Positions that even before 'Obamacare' the employers have tried to pay out as little as they possibly can. The only difference is now they have a rally cry.



Precisely...

My company brags about how smart we supposedly are. I feel like I'm the dumbest person here. When I got the job they were talking about how the first 45 days are basically just trial period and if you do sufficiently poorly on the test at the end of this trial period then you WILL be terminated. And everyone seems to agree that it's happened to certain people in the past, but that may be something they just say to us to make sure we try hard. Who knows?

At any rate, it would seem to me that they also want to recruit "top talent" given their alleged criteria. Why, then, are they not doing the same here? And EVERYWHERE else that wants top talent? And while we're on the subject, who DOESN'T want the best and the brightest as it applies to the job at hand? Anyone?


----------



## Cancer (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Papa Johns talking about laying ppl off just because Obama won... Grow the fuck up, people. If it didn't look like racism before, they're certainly not doing a good job of making it look like anything else at this point.
> 
> Did this happen when G.W. Bush's Darwin-Awards-Nominee ass won twice?
> 
> /rant



I stopped buying their pizzas when made that announcement earlier this year, the man basically had a shitfit because he thought he might have to raise the price of pizza 14 cents. Sorry John, if you weren't such a douchebag I would have gladly scraped up 3 more nickels per pizza that your people could frakkin' healthcare.


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> A co-worker of mine brought up exactly what you were talking about probably a month or so ago. A lot of companies offer insurance to attract top talent, it was never profitable. Even if the cost of it goes up, if they want to keep hiring top talent, they will have to continue offering it or risk missing good opportunities.
> 
> I don't know if anyone noticed, but most of the companies we hear bitching aren't exactly recruiting your 'youngest and brightest'. They are Papa Johns, Denny's, factories, etc.. Positions that even before 'Obamacare' the employers have tried to pay out as little as they possibly can. The only difference is now they have a rally cry.



Still it happens towards the bottom, and then always moves up. Or so I have come to realize. The more "vulnerable" members of any grouping always get targeted first, then more follow suit because the precedents exist.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Cancer said:


> I stopped buying their pizzas when made that announcement earlier this year, the man basically had a shitfit because he thought he might have to raise the price of pizza 14 cents. Sorry John, if you weren't such a douchebag I would have gladly scraped up 3 more nickels per pizza that your people could frakkin' healthcare.



I bought a Papa John's pizza the night before I saw on the news he'd said that. It was a new feeling for me as I had thoroughly enjoyed that 6 cheese bacon pizza and wanted to mention it to my dad who was sitting next to me watching the news, but I felt it was bad timing. 

"Damn that's fucked up. But hey... That new pizza they have is DA BOMB!"



Corrosion said:


> The more "vulnerable" members of any grouping always get targeted first, then more follow suit because the precedents exist.



Stealing this idea for when I take over the world. Don't worry... The folks in this thread that agree with me will be spared.


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 16, 2012)

Lawl. You and your army of disgruntled employees? That might actually work.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> A co-worker of mine brought up exactly what you were talking about probably a month or so ago. A lot of companies offer insurance to attract top talent, it was never profitable.


 
I think you and I are on the same page here, flint, but just to clarify for everyone: health insurance is not profitable to anyone except the insurance company providing the insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Aetna, etc.). To them it is just a product to be sold for a profit, and they don't care about you, they care about answering to Wall Street.

Employers that provide insurance to their employees in the US pay for part of the insurance premium. This is not profitable for them, it is a cost of doing business. It costs them money. When insurance rates go up, it hurts the employer, too. There are several ways to deal with this - the employer can absorb some of those price increases itself (assuming it is profitable enough to do so), some can be offset by increasing the prices of its products and/or services to customers, and the rest has to be passed on to the employee. Exactly how much an employer can absorb varies from one to the next, but at some point any of them will be hard pressed to stay in business if they have to keep absorbing cost increases without passing them on to customers.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 16, 2012)

One thing I've always wondered about is if blaming the price increases on Obamacare is just a sneaky way to continue to raise the premiums. Where I work the premium has gone up year after year even before Obamacare, and they change providers every couple of years or so. When we really need help on something we don't even call the insurance providers, we call the guy who sells us insurance and he takes care of it for us. :|


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Overtone said:


> One thing I've always wondered about is if blaming the price increases on Obamacare is just a sneaky way to continue to raise the premiums. Where I work the premium has gone up year after year even before Obamacare, and they change providers every couple of years or so.


 
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some increases just to increase the premium for greater profit (it certainly feels like it), but there are legitimate costs increases to the insurance companies, too. For example, insurance companies used to be able to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions (in certain circumstances) like cancer, aids, etc. These conditions are very expensive to treat, so denying coverage helped lower the cost to the insurance company, resulting in lower premiums.

Most insurance plans also had a maximum payout of 1-2 million dollars total over the course of a person's lifetime. Once you hit that number (quite possible if you have cancer, aids, etc.), the insurance company could (and would) simply cancell your coverage. This helped keep premium costs down, too.

Under Obamacare, insurance companies can no longer do either of those things. This is much better for us, especially those of us with expensive to treat diseases, but it does legitimately cost the insurance companies more, and you can be damn sure they will pass those costs on to us, which is not so good for us.




Overtone said:


> When we really need help on something we don't even call the insurance providers, we call the guy who sells us insurance and he takes care of it for us. :|


 
Same here. You are his customer, so he cares a lot more about keeping you happy than the insurance company does. Plus, he sells their insurance to other businesses than yours, so the insurance company is more likely to listen to him, too.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> At any rate, it would seem to me that they also want to recruit "top talent" given their alleged criteria. Why, then, are they not doing the same here? And EVERYWHERE else that wants top talent? And while we're on the subject, who DOESN'T want the best and the brightest as it applies to the job at hand? Anyone?


 
The only thing I can offer up here is that the degree of competition for the available jobs affects how much a company has to pay in order to fill those job openings.

In my specific case, the average age of engineers in this industry is close to 60. Many have already retired, and those that haven't yet retired will do so soon. To make matters worse, there are very few people in the US going to school for engineering, so we have a shortage of talent. Worse still, the US government caps the the number of foriegn engineers who can come into the US for work (H1B visa), so we can't just make up the difference by hiring engineers from overseas.

TL;DR - Lots of job opening to fill plus few people to fill them means companies have to pay more, and provide better benefits, in order to fill those job openings.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd = Software engineer...


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Konfyouzd = Software engineer...


 
We are a software company too, so we have software engineers here, but it is the chemical engineers that are making a _killing_ right now.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 16, 2012)

Very interesting tedtan

I can see how those things would raise the cost, but I'd gladly spend more (or have my salary suffer) if it would put an end to people with the worst illnesses being denied coverage, and on a more self centered level, to know that couldn't happen to me. I think most people would feel the same, so it's a shame that it's being turned into a jobs debate, even if it does factor into the microeconomics of our country.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 16, 2012)

*and Twinkies


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Overtone said:


> Very interesting tedtan
> 
> I'd gladly spend more (or have my salary suffer) if it would put an end to people with the worst illnesses being denied coverage, and on a more self centered level, to know that couldn't happen to me. I think most people would feel the same


 
I agree, and think most people do, too. In fact, we probably need to go even further than Obamacare. I just realize that doing so will cost me (and everyone else) more money.

If there is one takeaway from this discussion, remember that you don't get more for less. If you want more (of anything), you have to pay more.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Overtone said:


> *and Twinkies


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I agree, and think most people do, too. In fact, we probably need to go even further than Obamacare. I just realize that doing so will cost me (and everyone else) more money.
> 
> If there is one takeaway from this discussion, remember that you don't get more for less. If you want more (of anything), you have to pay more.



I actually think it would be cheaper or only slightly more expensive if we eliminated insurance and went single payer via taxes personally. It'd eliminate the need for medicaid, medicare and there is no overhead or profit margin. If you pay into a program too then add that cost to the savings and I can't see peoples expenses (including taxes) being all that much higher.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 16, 2012)

The countries with free healthcare spend less on it per capita and as a percent of GDP than the US does. While people travel to the US from all over for certain treatments, I don't imagine it's piss poor at those countries either. The problem is that it's not apples to apples... a place like Norway might be really good at using public funds to pay for universal healthcare while the US might be really bad at it.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 16, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Workers are no longer being literally worked to death (in the first world), and most union jobs pay quite well for their skill set.


This isn't entirely accurate. In Texas, and many other states, rest breaks aren't required by law and thousands die while working here each year as a result of heat exhaustion. 

The problem I see with Hostess is their lack of an evolving business model. While many people in the US have been slowly turning towards healthier foods over the past few years, Hostess hasn't really changed. Their products tend to be overpriced and when people think of Twinkies, they think of it as a food for fat slobs. Maybe if they had invested some money into changing the image of their products they wouldn't have gotten to the point where they couldn't pay their employees.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

I can vouch for that. My brother in law has basically told me if he takes a vacation day he's fired and they've had people puking on the job then putting their gear back on. Apparently throwing up isn't a good enough reason to go home. He's also forced to work 7 days a week. They said if he didn't want to work that much they'd cut his hours next to nothing. Companies aren't held accountable in Texas.

He could quit, but the grass isn't any greener.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I actually think it would be cheaper or only slightly more expensive if we eliminated insurance and went single payer via taxes personally. It'd eliminate the need for medicaid, medicare and there is no overhead or profit margin. If you pay into a program too then add that cost to the savings and I can't see peoples expenses (including taxes) being all that much higher.


 
While I don't doubt that it is possible to do this at a cost savings, I don't trust the US goverment to implement it and maintain that cost savings. Its track record of controlling costs is atrocious and, to make it worse, it has no experience with healthcare.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

tedtan said:


> While I don't doubt that it is possible to do this at a cost savings, I don't trust the US goverment to implement it and maintain that cost savings. Its track record of controlling costs is atrocious and, to make it worse, it has no experience with healthcare.



While not making the best case for the government they do manage medicaid, medicare, Vet benefits, SSI and disability. The issue in a few of these cases is people making the bill's that adjust the rates and benefits put their own interest ahead of the millions using these various programs. A lot of politicians quit after making medicare unreasonably expensive for medication to go work for those very companies the bills were working with. 

We need more government oversight of the government itself. 

As much as the government could mess it up I trust private insurance even less.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

flint757 said:


> While not making the best case for the government they do manage medicaid, medicare, Vet benefits, SSI and disability. The issue in a few of these cases is people making the bill's that adjust the rates and benefits put their own interest ahead of the millions using these various programs. A lot of politicians quit after making medicare unreasonably expensive for medication to go work for those very companies the bills were working with.


 
Medicare and medicaid aren't too bad off, but the veteran benefits aren't in such a great condition, and social security is hanging on by a thread. A _very_ frayed thread. I'm not convinved that anyone on these boards will ever see any benefit from social security.



flint757 said:


> We need more government oversight of the government itself.


 
I would prefer to see _independent_ oversight of the government. 



flint757 said:


> As much as the government could mess it up I trust private insurance even less.


 
At this point I distrust them all equally. That's the only healthy, sane option I see.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Yeah SS will be an interesting battle over the next 10-20 years. it seems to be political suicide at this point to talk about its removal.

Good point. The question is what independent body can remain neutral.

It is healthy to distrust those with power.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 16, 2012)

Neutral, independent oversight is my ideal. Unfortunately, the real world is less than ideal, and I don't have any specific body I trust to maintain that status.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 16, 2012)

Hmmm I'll have to give that some thought.

On another note, it seems this isn't the first time they filed for bankruptcy. So am I to presume that this won't really effect them in the long term.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 16, 2012)

Union clearly didn't do it's job. Costing workers their jobs isn't providing better wage and working conditions.

There are still many reasonable unions, but many of the big ones are as corrupt as the corps that they were originally set up to keep in check.
We've lost so many of our best factories due to the greed of a select few union "leaders".
Locally, Fedders, Trailmobile, United Technologies, Cattapillar, ect..
Caterpillar won't build North American plant in Illinois - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com


----------



## pink freud (Nov 16, 2012)

As somebody going through union vs company contract squabbles right now, all I can say is don't trust either side's presentation to the media.


----------



## ilyti (Nov 17, 2012)

As a European who lived in a socialist health care system for most of my life (Canada's health care system is similar, but not as good) I am glad for the system I have the fortune to live under. Because even though in Canada I still have to pay for my own dental work, glasses and eye exams, physiotherapy and prescription medications, I won't be ignored if I have a chronic illness like cancer or AIDS. I'd be put on a waiting list for any number of important tests, MRI, CT scans, etc, but if I walk into a hospital with a broken arm, I don't have to pay anything for them to fix me up. A woman doesn't need to pay a thousand dollars to give birth in a hospital. If I'm correct (am I?), the only way they will give you "free" care in an American hospital is if you are in imminent, life threatening danger, like if you've been shot or you cut your arm off with a buzzsaw by accident. That's not good enough.

Anyway, what I wonder is, how difficult was it for socialized health care to "take" when it was first suggested in places like Canada or countries of the EU? Was there third-party, independent, unbiased oversight of the government to make sure money was being apportioned equally? I doubt it. And yet, these systems work to a greater or lesser degree.

Great mini series about the first Socialist premier of Saskatchewan, who introduced universal health care in his province: Prairie Giant: The Tommy Douglas Story (TV mini-series 2006&ndash;.) - IMDb If anyone gets a chance to see it, I recommend it. A lot of what this guy went through reminds me of the insults and whining aimed at Obama these days.


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 17, 2012)

What is this tomfoolery?!


----------



## tedtan (Nov 17, 2012)

ilyti said:


> if I walk into a hospital with a broken arm, I don't have to pay anything for them to fix me up. A woman doesn't need to pay a thousand dollars to give birth in a hospital. If I'm correct (am I?), the only way they will give you "free" care in an American hospital is if you are in imminent, life threatening danger, like if you've been shot or you cut your arm off with a buzzsaw by accident. That's not good enough.


 
Hospitals in the States have to treat anyone who comes in for these "normal" types of conditions. If you can't pay, they will often just write off the cost of treatment, but sometimes they do sell the debt to a debt collector.

Where you are screwed is if you need treatments that don't have a high rate of success: chemotherapy for cancer, heart transplant, etc. These treatments won't be provided unless you either have insurance or can pay cash up front (in which case you could afford insurance).




ilyti said:


> Anyway, what I wonder is, how difficult was it for socialized health care to "take" when it was first suggested in places like Canada or countries of the EU? Was there third-party, independent, unbiased oversight of the government to make sure money was being apportioned equally? I doubt it. And yet, these systems work to a greater or lesser degree.


 
Something to keep in mind here is that the liberal politicians in America are almost as conservative as the conservative politicians everywehere else. There are a lot of old money white people here who benefit from keeping things the way they are. These are the same people who tend to go into politics, so they don't have much incentive to actually change anything.

Over our history, the US has tended to be a pretty conservative, capitalist country, but we are slowly moving towards more to the left. We will probably settle into a European style socialist approach, but not in our lifetimes.

Interestingly, communist countries (China) are doing better today than they were 10-15 years ago because they have moved more towards capitalism, so I expect all first world countries* will settle into a socialist model ala Europe at some point.


* China is not currently a first world country, but they will be within the next 20-50 years.


----------



## Nile (Nov 17, 2012)

Man this escalated quick into a union/taxes/money/country debate.

Can't we just morn the Twinkie?
Fuck the knock-offs. Not the same.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 17, 2012)

If it is true that they have filed for bankruptcy before then I don't think they are closing there doors down for good.


----------



## Jake (Nov 18, 2012)

good thing I never even see hostess products around here or this might have made me sad. I live in tastycake country


----------



## MFB (Nov 18, 2012)

Tastykake?

That's one letter away from sounding like WAY too much cream in my mouth to be a good thing


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 18, 2012)

Tastykakes and Herr country, 717? I don't know how to feel about either of those companies, their products are very hit or miss. I wonder who is going to buy the old hostess recipes/names...


----------



## Jake (Nov 18, 2012)

Corrosion said:


> Tastykakes and Herr country, 717? I don't know how to feel about either of those companies, their products are very hit or miss. I wonder who is going to buy the old hostess recipes/names...


yes sir 717, I love the kandy kakes haha but some of their products are ehh


----------



## synrgy (Nov 19, 2012)

Daily Kos :: Inside the Hostess Bankery

Great read from the inside.



> What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
> 1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
> 2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
> 3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
> ...



Honestly, would any of you have taken that offer? I would have walked, too. I'd rather take my chances with an uncertain market than willingly grant my life to another man's pockets for virtually nothing.



> When I received my first paycheck from then Interstate Bakeries in 1999 it had a memo stapled to it. The memo announced that Wonder had just had the most productive quarter in baking history. It stated that the health of the company and brand had never been better. The break room was buzzing with excitement because our contract was soon to be up for renegotiation and this would surely mean smooth sailing. A few weeks later we got the 'oops' letter. Turns out it was all an 'accounting' error and the company was failing miserably.
> 
> Conveniently though, CEO Charles Sullivan and the board managed to sell their stock before word got out about the bad news. No jail time of course. In fact, Sullivan was brought back as a consultant after his resignation. Enron happened a few years later and at the bakery we were amazed how much attention they got compared to us.



Corruption is the culprit. Not the union.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 19, 2012)




----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 19, 2012)

It sucks that people lost jobs...but just remember, not all unions are created equal...mines a joke...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 19, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I don't know how that works involving franchises exactly, but per business I think you have to have a minimum of 50 employee's for pretty much any of 'Obamacare' taxes to actually phase you.


As I understand it, while a franchisee might only have a single restaurant, a typical one (not specifically Denny's, but any franchisable company) would have several, which would place them over the 50-head minimum.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 19, 2012)

If youre working at a "bakery" hoping for seniority its time for a change in mindset.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 19, 2012)

This pic is so sultry


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 19, 2012)

tedtan said:


> I would prefer to see _independent_ oversight of the government.


Competent independent oversight would result in a recommendation of dissolution.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Nov 19, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> If youre working at a "bakery" hoping for seniority its time for a change in mindset.


One can replace bakery with any other business name. So long as an economy is based upon fickle human emotion, (both in the supply and consumption sides), your Ass can be handed to you, anywhere, anytime.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 19, 2012)

While I realize you're being a bit of a smart ass (in the comical sense), if an independent entity recommended the government dissolve (they wouldn't; as nice as anarchy may sound to some it is a poor political philosophy for a civilized society to follow) chances are they would end up replacing the government as they would have the power to do so. 

Not that this would ever happen or come up in the first place. 

In all honesty the biggest problem in politics currently is that most people don't want to be politicians so we get left with the lowest common denominator. I mean on a local ticket you'll have one person running for quite a few positions and even in the larger positions it is only a handful willing it seems. It isn't a position of respect anymore.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 19, 2012)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Competent independent oversight would result in a recommendation of dissolution.


 


Touche, good sir. Touche.


----------



## Jake (Nov 19, 2012)

there might still be hope 
Hostess, union agree to try mediation to avoid liquidation - latimes.com


----------



## flint757 (Nov 19, 2012)

It doesn't matter, according to that article they have also been on a straight decline economically. Even if they resolve the workers issue they need to change as a company and as a product or face the same issue again later on.

Who has that steady of a decline and instead of changing the product tries to cut cost. 

Companies need to focus on the root of their problems not short term solutions...


----------



## ilyti (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm just guessing here, but I would say one of the big reasons Hostess was suffering economically is that they didn't keep up with what people care about nowadays. Mc Donalds is still doing great business because they changed thier menu to include "healthier" options. Hell, they just added yogurt to the Happy Meal (and that's AWESOME). If Hostess had made an attempt to market their food as healthier, (or actually MADE healthier alternative products) then they may not have gotten to this point. Who knows?


----------



## tedtan (Nov 19, 2012)

ilyti said:


> I'm just guessing here, but I would say one of the big reasons Hostess was suffering economically is that they didn't keep up with what people care about nowadays. Mc Donalds is still doing great business because they changed thier menu to include "healthier" options. Hell, they just added yogurt to the Happy Meal (and that's AWESOME). If Hostess had made an attempt to market their food as healthier, (or actually MADE healthier alternative products) then they may not have gotten to this point. Who knows?


 
You have a good point here, ilyti.

Sometimes it just costs more to make something than the customers are willing to pay, too. Personally, I haven't eaten anything from Hostess in so long I can't even remember when it was, so I'm not interested in paying very much, if anthing at all, for their products.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 19, 2012)

Compared to other junk food they had a much higher price. I mean little debbies sells some products that are better and at half the price. It honestly isn't a surprise for me. 

If I'm buying junk food it isn't going to be 'top of the line'.


----------



## tedtan (Nov 19, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Compared to other junk food they had a much higher price. I mean little debbies sells some products that are better and at half the price. It honestly isn't a surprise for me.
> 
> If I'm buying junk food it isn't going to be 'top of the line'.


 
If you can get a better product for half the price, then this is just economics. The market simply won't bear the higher price for an inferior product. You can only expect a small premium for brand name alone when people are hard pressed for cash. And you'll notice that this caught up with them during a massive recession...


----------



## ZXIIIT (Nov 20, 2012)

My friend's Oingo Boingo style band will not be affected by this,


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 20, 2012)

ilyti said:


> If Hostess had made an attempt to market their food as healthier, (or actually MADE healthier alternative products) then they may not have gotten to this point.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 20, 2012)

they mght have made those but i never saw or heard of them till now, so call it a half hearted effort


----------



## flint757 (Nov 20, 2012)

Yeah agreed. I have never, ever seen that in stores. That being said if I was trying to be healthy I wouldn't be buying that type of food anyhow.

In other words they were doomed from the start and there only logical option was to slash their prices to be more competitive with the products that are equally as good.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 20, 2012)

No more deep fried Twinkies, I'm bummed out.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 20, 2012)

RIP Hostess video cracks me up.

RIP Hostess - YouTube


----------



## MFB (Nov 20, 2012)

Overtone said:


> they mght have made those but i never saw or heard of them till now, so call it a half hearted effort



A half-hearted attempt for a snack with only half the calories I suppose


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 20, 2012)

I saw _and_ tried them. I think the actual problem was that they were kinda terrible .


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 20, 2012)

flint757 said:


> That being said if I was trying to be healthy I wouldn't be buying that type of food anyhow...





Yea no shit...

That's like fast food restaurants with low calorie options... It's just trying to appease nay-sayers and to make people who would eat it any goddamn way feel better about it... 

EDIT:  @ those being the 1st set of bakeries shut down.


----------



## ilyti (Nov 20, 2012)

^
That's definitely true, that some people just want the healthy things on the menu to justify buying a McChicken sandwich (and getting a SIDE SALAD instead of fries! I'm healthy!!) It's all clever marketing. McDonald's salads aren't all that healthy anyway. But I have bought a McChicken and added pretty much all the lettuce and dressing from my side salad to the burger, and it was MADE BETTER! Glad to now have that option.

Re: the healthier Twinkies... well I guess there was some effort there. Just never seen them before. In my other post I guess I wanted to bring up the idea that Hostess should have expanded their product line in a more significant way than having the "diet" version of the same products. They thought that was enough though, it seems. I think it would have made sense if they branched out into making anything other than high calorie snack cakes of various types. Whole wheat bread? Pancake mix? Granola bars? Bran muffins?

Maybe they did all that too, but I just never saw that in the grocery store either..


----------



## flint757 (Nov 21, 2012)

It's certainly possible when brand name has no meaning, in terms of who owns the companies. As an example, Frito lay and Pepsi are the same company.


----------



## Nykur_Myrkvi (Nov 21, 2012)

I went to the US last year and tried Twinkies and Snowballs for the first and evidently last time.

Like someone else said in here, what sucks about this is definitely the job loss.


----------



## JoshDjent (Nov 23, 2012)

Won't some other company just buy them out?


----------



## flint757 (Nov 23, 2012)

I think they are in mediation.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Nov 23, 2012)

well if they go under for good i wont be able to make myself another sandwich cause any other bread thats not wonder bread tastes like shit


----------

