HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Four Short Sentences Expl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:23 PM

Four Short Sentences Explain Who Killed The Twinkie


http://front.moveon.org/four-short-sentences-explain-who-killed-the-twinkie/?rc=daily.share

Imagine, some people refer to these executives as “job creators.”



45 replies, 7895 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Four Short Sentences Explain Who Killed The Twinkie (Original post)
Omaha Steve Nov 2012 OP
ProudProgressiveNow Nov 2012 #1
benld74 Nov 2012 #2
Cha Nov 2012 #3
Skittles Nov 2012 #4
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #5
dreamnightwind Nov 2012 #18
mojowork_n Nov 2012 #20
RiverSong Nov 2012 #40
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #6
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #7
DemoTex Nov 2012 #8
ProfessionalLeftist Nov 2012 #9
femrap Nov 2012 #10
GatorLarry Nov 2012 #22
Hotler Nov 2012 #11
ErikJ Nov 2012 #12
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #14
uponit7771 Nov 2012 #17
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #24
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #13
ClusterFreak Nov 2012 #15
snappyturtle Nov 2012 #16
Omaha Steve Nov 2012 #19
calimary Nov 2012 #43
progressoid Nov 2012 #21
OnyxCollie Nov 2012 #23
BainsBane Nov 2012 #25
Gregorian Nov 2012 #26
thelordofhell Nov 2012 #27
BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2012 #28
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #29
brett_jv Nov 2012 #44
Honeycombe8 Nov 2012 #45
Initech Nov 2012 #30
closeupready Nov 2012 #31
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #32
redqueen Nov 2012 #33
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #42
musical_soul Nov 2012 #34
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #35
RC Nov 2012 #36
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #41
musical_soul Nov 2012 #37
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #38
silhouete2 Nov 2012 #39

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:52 PM

1. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:53 PM

2. Amen to that Omaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:53 PM

3. Excellent, Steve! MAKE IT VIRAL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:59 PM

4. CORRECT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:09 PM

5. The execs (all who had a hand) are done with their jobs.

They've gotten rich enough so they can stop with all that "running a business and employing workers to sell a product" silly nonsense.

Time to take the money and run. It's on to the Wall Street Casino.

....Where they can start to make some Real, Serious MONEY.

Astronomical piles of the stuff. (In the "Beyond the dreams of avarice," category of Real, Serious MONEY.)



The graph is explained and summarized at this link:

http://www.lcurve.org/#

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mojowork_n (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:06 AM

18. That is an interesting website

Thanks for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:08 AM

20. Isn't it?

Visually, it's the opposite of the fiscal debt cliff. After a certain point gravity reverses itself and income accumulates at astronomic rates, to a stratospheric height.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:52 PM

40. Ditto. Can't wait to spread it around... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:44 PM

6. What makes me chuckle is ...

Whenever executive pay, or the complete lack of downward wage pressure that applies to every worker outside of the C-Suite, is raised as a (non)issue the right gets stupid quiet, except for the weak-a$$ed, "But that's different" comments.

How is it different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:46 PM

7. + brazillion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:10 PM

8. Again, the airline model.

My pension was stolen on March 31, 2003.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:17 PM

9. Another thing CEOs and their ilk have been referred to as:

psychopaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:19 PM

10. Why do

 

the sheeple want to fight and blame each other when there are a bunch of rich dudes who are at fault...and laughing all the way to the bank???

Divide and Conquer...when will the sheeple learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femrap (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:58 AM

22. Absoultely!

Those who are actively plundering everything from pensions to the national treasure (through crushing debt) keep us all divided in a sick game: Republican vs. Democrat . . . men vs. women . . . right-to-life vs. women's rights . . . middle-class vs. poor "takers" . . . black vs. white vs. brown, etc.

It can't continue for much longer. Too many are waking-up.

I eventually expect lynch mobs that will drag Banksters out of their hiding places and string them up.

Maybe that's why DHS has been buying so much ammunition. To protect their masters . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:39 PM

11. Shout it from the mountain tops. Bravo! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:58 PM

12. Easy solution: Bring back the 90% top tax rate

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

90% of any income over $3 mill goes to the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:25 PM

14. A good start. Then tax all transfers out of the country at 100%. And tax all estates above $5 mil

 

at 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:40 PM

17. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:45 AM

24. How 'bout tax cap gains as income, drop corp rate to 15% and bring back Reagan era progressive rates

That would encourage companies to reinvest earnings ... in people, in training, in equipment;
That would recognize capital gains as the income it really is;
That would bring back a progressive tax rate the Repubs can't bitch about without bitching about St. Ronnie

(BTW - I think it is time we start changing the names of things named after Reagan ... remember, they were trying to replace FDR with Reagan on the dime ... time to take back history)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:03 PM

13. Required reading ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:28 PM

15. And the next MSM talking head motherfucker who cracks a joke about loving Twinkies...

...and Ho Hos, and bemoans the fact that they may soon be no more without mentioning the same information as the OP, should be forced to eat nothing but Twinkies and Ho Hos for the next month till they puke.

Thousands of job losses due to managerial malfeasance is nothing to joke about. So STFU. I'm talking to you Richard Lui of MSNBC.

I mention him cuz I saw him do this a couple of times in the last few days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:36 PM

16. Thank you so mcuh. Just posted this on my FB page! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:29 AM

19. Your welcome




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:03 PM

43. Shared on my Facebook page, too, Steve!

Who's to blame, I mean - REALLY? Let's just look at the facts, shall we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:32 AM

21. Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:04 AM

23. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:15 PM

25. transfats

I continue to maintain the problem is the produce a crap product that fewer people want to eat today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:27 PM

26. $160 million divided by 18,000 equals about $9,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:44 PM

28. +1000000000 kick, rec and shared on F.B. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:52 PM

29. Cutting off nose to spite face?

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

A company is on the edge of closing its doors. Most of the union workers accept the skimpy bargaining deal. But the baker's union does not. The baker's union knows the company cannot withstand a strike. Everyone knows. Yet it still does it (although a lot of bakers cross the picket lines). Illogical.

Even tho Hostess gave the execs big raises, which was morally and ethically and fiscally wrong wrong wrong...the facts remain the same. You strike, you have no job.

I hope being right is enough to make their Christmases happy, 'cause that's all they're gonna have. The really sad part is it did away with the jobs of the workers who were not involved in that strike.

Like the judge said, "Many people, myself included, wonder at the logic of striking at this time."

And in the meantime, a few more people move to the group that thinks that maybe, just maybe, unions have gotten out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:59 PM

44. If Unions always hewed to the logic you espouse ...

Then they would have little or no power. I just have to ask ... is that what you want?

I applaud them for putting their principles over their pocketbooks. If the numbers are correct in this graphic, then it appears that the fault for the company closure lies at least equally w/the greedy execs refusing to share the pie (pardon the pun). Yet you decline to even mention these numbers. I just have to ask ... why is that, exactly?

Where I sit, this is exactly the kind of thing that Unions (at least once in a while) need to be willing to do, for the sake of the movement having any power whatsoever as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brett_jv (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:39 PM

45. This was an unusual situation. The co was about to close its doors....

it was in dire straits. Yeah, they sucked at giving all those exec raises, but that had nothing to do with causing the closing of the co. And the bankruptcy court approved those raises.

Fact #2: Most of the union workers opposed the strike.

Fact #3: The vote taken in the baker's union was not in secret.

Fact #4: Despite the baker's strike, many of hte bakers in that union crossed the line to work.

Fact #5: Everyone knew, unlike most situations, that if there was a strike, the company couldn't take the monetary loss of a shutdown in business, and that would be the nail in its coffin.

Now, I agree, if all anyone cares about is himself, then he has a right to let his family and himself suffre so that he can be morally right. But many thousands of workers lost their jobs because of what these union workers decided to do. They hurt a lot of other people. And that's not right.

Add to that another bad PR move. More people will have a soured view of unions because of this. More and more people are joining that bandwagon, as they watch these abuses of power of the few unfold. (Power of the few union workers who hold thousands of jobs in their hands.)

Makes no sense. I would not have sacrificed a job because I'm ticked that executives got raises. Sometimes yu have to be practical. I would've kept the company going while I looked for another job.

It really is like cutting off your (and everyone else's) nose, to spite the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:09 PM

30. Executive thieves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 03:06 PM

31. Amen to that, Omaha Steve. Big K&R.

Disgraceful treatment by management.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:12 PM

32. This has been showing up on Facebook the past couple of days

A friend of mine posted it. It's making the rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silhouete2 (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:27 PM

33. Good good, this deserves to be widely shared.

And welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:59 PM

42. Thank you

I appreciate the welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:39 PM

34. I think the unions should have been more compromising.

Yes, there was some selfishness on the parts of people on top. There always is. However, it's their company. If they want to shut it down, they can. That's not me taking the side of selfishness. That's me being realistic. If I was a union leader, my focus would have been on keeping the jobs of the 18,000 people. I would have also fought to make the hit of wages less severe. Look where the lack of compromise got the 18,000 workers. I don't care about twinkies. I know other brands will have their own version. I ate Little Debbie cupcakes today, and they were mighty tasty. Also always thought Hostess was too high. Good riddence to the junk food, but the last thing we needed was 18,000 joining the unemployment line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:57 PM

35. They had made concessions several times

And the management kept coming back for more. In the meantime, they give themselves HUGE raises and did not keep their end of the agreement to put in their share of the employee pension program. The unions saw that they kept on giving so the "company could stay afloat" while the big wigs gave themselves huge raises--for basically running the company into the ground. If I were them, I'd have been pissed off, too. I don't care if it is "their" company. You don't make money UNLESS you have a workforce that puts out your product. Without supply, you don't meet demand--and you don't make money. Pure and simple. Think the managers would go work the line? Hell no. Employees' work helped the company make money--they deserve decent compensation. I mean, why not just pay them crap wages like Walmart and forget about it? That way their employees can be on food stamps and then the taxpayers foot the bill. Yeah, that sounds fair. And truthfully, they were going under no matter what the union was going to do. If they had stayed on, I truly believe that their doors would have shut just the same. They had crap management no matter what. That is what killed that company--not the workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silhouete2 (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:26 PM

36. +1000

 

The workers are the company, not management. Management just represents the company. Just like the needed machinery needs maintenance and upkeep, so do the workers. Upper management destroyed the viability of the company by short changing the workers as surely as running the machines, without maintenance, till they quit running.
Anyone saying the workers should have caved again, just to have jobs, does not understand what is going on. It is the gutting of the company for personal gain that is the objective of upper management. The workers caving just prolongs the inevitable job loss a bit longer. Why? Because the objective was to bankrupt the company in the first place. And that is just what upper management did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:57 PM

41. Exactly

If I have my facts straight--after their first bankruptcy in 2004 they were taken over--seems to me a la Bain Capital--that included hedge fund managers. So yes, I'd say their primary objective was very clear--put the company into deep debt, bankrupt it again, and collect the leftovers. They NEVER gave a crap about their workers. All they saw ere dollar signs. However, the first group that managed Hostess before the first bankruptcy ran it into the ground as well--but I attribute that to incompetency. If you can't figure out that you aren't making money like you used to BUT then agree to union contracts where you are beholden to something you can't actually deliver on--that's on MANAGEMENT not on the workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silhouete2 (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:29 PM

37. Crap wages like wal-mart?

I knew somebody who worked for Hostess. He got paid very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:05 PM

38. average pay was in the range of $11-$16/hr for drivers & bakers. drivers got the

 

high end, bakers got the low end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musical_soul (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:51 PM

39. You didn't read what I said

You said the unions didnt' give enough concessions. I gave you the facts that they did give concessions before and management gave themselves huge raises and then came back demanding more. What would you have them do--I said. Have crap wages like WalMart? Would that have been enough of a concession to satisfy you? That was my point. I know for a fact that don't make those crap wages like at WalMart--that is why they are in a union.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread