“It failed because the people that ran it had no idea what they were doing. Every other excuse is just an attempt by the guilty to blame someone else. “
interesting. I suggest that what is being proposed is that every union company be turned over to the unions (just like GM) because obviously nobody else could possibly “know what they are doing”
That the real message here. Facts don’t matter.
It’s tough to find money for capital improvements when you are losing $300 million per year.
It’s tough to find money for capital improvements when you are losing $300 million per year.
You mean it wasn’t that the unions demanded different drivers for different products going to the same places which robbed the company of funds needed to modernize? Let’s not forget that the union most likely fought modernization as that usually results in more automation and less workers. I refuse to believe any union thug would be for more automation.
Union dues paid by employee were over $2 million each year. I bet $2 million could modernize a big part of a bakery nicely.
Straw man argument. Nobody has claimed that the unions wanted it to die. They wanted it to richly featherbed their salaries and their retirement, forever.
About a year ago, I saw a show on The Food Network about convenient snacks. It said Little Debbie haa a much greater market than Hostess, because their manufacturing was much more efficient, so they could sell for less.
It could be that Hostess’ management was unable to take advantage of modern manufacturing methods that would have allowed them to operate more efficiently and that contributed to their apparent demise.
Maybe in Mexico they’ll be able to make a profit and keep people employed
Coming from the LAT, that's rich! Haw haw haw!
I guess we can argue all day long about who we should point our crooked little finger at but the fact remains that there are 18,500 workers out there who will be shifting from taxpayer mode to government dependency mode.
They’re right.
Should have bought more intelligent robotics and sacked the labor.
LA Times whoring for the Unions....
Kind of tough to modernize when your union is fighting every step of the process (i.e., to ‘save’ jobs).
The union got just what it deserved.
I’m sure Obama can fix everything by creating a new Department of Strategic Twinkie Resources. This will be a cabinet level position with 275,000 Federal employees in 42 district offices. The new department’s budget will be $250 billon per year. Twinkies will be made available to the public with a doctor’s prescription, cosigned by an authorized person from your local Twinkie district office. Twinkies will cost $178... each.
The unions put them under nothing else!!!
Unions and bad management killed GM, just like unions and bad management killed Hostess. They’re is enough blame to go around. Unlike GM though, Hostess will be allowed to go bankrupt and the law will be followed.....they’re just not big enough, or located in the right states, for the Marxist in the White House to care.
Really, Michael Hiltzik? You gonna go with that?
I wonder if the unions’ refusal to budge had anything to do with so-called lack of modernization. Capital spending ain’t free, ya know.
Nope, seems to me when people don’t show up to work, they lose their jobs.
There are even stories out there of some Hostess workers HAPPY to lose their jobs. Fine with me.
I’ve seen other stories of Hostess employees ANGRY at the union leadership for putting the company out of business.
How amazing it is, when someone wants to find an excuse for the mouth breathers who won’t show up to work in a rough economy, that they find some hack “journalist” to carry their water for them...and blame the COMPANY that provided the jobs.
Hey, speaking of lack of modernization, how is the circulation and profit margin of the L.A. Times in the past 10 years, Michael Hiltzik?
If Hostess had moved all operations to right to work states the moment demands became unreasonable, Hostess would be here in the black, and all the employees would have fully paid jobs.
Except the union bosses and executives.
As a consumer, I used to love this stuff... but I haven't bought any of their products for decades for one simple reason: the ridiculous high price of the products.
I know there are a thousand factors involved in this, but your first goal is to either have a competitively priced product, or a vastly superior product that is worth the outlandish price. Hostess had neither. You can sit around and point your finger at a dozen exec who are bleeding the company of 10 million annually in salaries... which is on par with Obama telling us he can fix the deficit by eliminating the corporate jet tax deduction.
Although I personally think it is shameful for an exec to accept millions in salary while a company is crumbling around him, that is a decision for the company and it's investors... not the clock punchers who have somehow evolved the ideal that they are entitled to as much of the company's profits as the investors themselves. I think we would all agree... executive compensation was a mere drop in the ocean compared to the expense of union labor, benefits and pensions.
Hostess went bankrupt owing nearly 1 Billion in benefits to retired union workers. It was by far its largest obligation, but according to the union shill who wrote the article, unions had nothing to do with it.