Twinkie killed to save Big Bird

[_bcspace]

Whose fault is it, the workers' fault, or the unions?

Ultimately, the workers' for not understanding economics enough to throw off or keep from being deceived by the unions. That brings in the liberal union-run public school system for some fault as well.

In other news. Looks like the Democrats' economy is making the Twinkie an attractive buy for a Mexican company:

But the big question is whether the same problems that haunted Hostess – high sugar prices tied to US trade tariffs, changing consumer tastes, and union pushback against labor concessions – will squeeze whatever profit is left in the brands.

Especially if a Mexican buyer is involved, production may go the way of the Brach’s and Fannie May candy concerns: south of the border. With US sugar tariffs set artificially high to protect Florida sugar-growing concerns, a non-unionized shop with access to lower-priced sugar in Mexico could be the Twinkie lifeline, economists suggest.

On the other hand, if Hostess’ problem is its legacy delivery system, which is what University of Maryland economist Peter Morici suspects, Bimbo may be able to squeeze profits out of the supply chain while still making Twinkies in the US, albeit probably not in union shops.

“It may well be that other US producers step into the void and expand their US production, in which case the Hostess liquidation might not be a total loss,” says Chris Edwards, an economist with the conservative Cato Institute.

For now, the future of 18,500 Hostess jobs are up in the air, and many may never return. As for the Twinkie? It looks like it actually is indestructible.

http://news.yahoo.com/twinkie-return-mexican-expat-180426682.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CfcOqpQgngARuLQtDMD

Viva la Mexico!
(Where Obama has been stashing jobs since day one)

[_Gadianton]

Ultimately, the workers' for not understanding economics enough to to....

If you believe that, and if you believe God's law is free-market capitalism, then you are in apostasy.

The whole point of free-market capitalism is that agents don't have to "understand economics". Clearly, you and Droopy don't, yet, we allow you to vote anyway.

Not even the Austrian School agrees with you. Though the Astrian school is inconsistent and their brand of empowering agents leads to contradictions, they radically believe that knowledge of economics is powerless to help market agents make decisions. Niether does the Chicago School nor any other market-based economic theory require or even reward agents for "understanding economics". That's kind of the entire point of choosing a free market over government.

When you return from licking your wounds, will you weigh in on the other thread where I offered points for understanding basic economics and explain to Droopy the difference between a loan and an investment?

[_subgenius]

The Bakers Union was smart enough to realize that Hostess was a dead fish anyway and held their position for negotiations with other companies.

yes, because negotiations work that way...especially when one is shopping to buy a new company..geez

You realize that the Hostess company is not what will be bought, it will likely be their brands...maybe the facilities and equipment...
Unlikely that a big player will care what those 5,000 deadbeats were holding out for and you can bet top dollar that...

[_Bob Loblaw]

Looks like both sides were bluffing.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/19/news/co ... ?hpt=hp_t3

I'm sure some people around here will be disappointed that those awful union employees may not get fired after all.

[_beastie]

As far as the unions go: You can blame them for not making enough concessions. You can blame the bakers for administering the final death blow. But you can't blame them for management's strategic incompetence, or the decision to try to run a flailing company on debt, hope, and empty calories.

There's more than enough blame in this story for everyone involved to have a taste.

Looks like the only person who benefited from this debacle was the former CEO, Brian Driscoll, whose salary was tripled while they were facing bankruptcy.

http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess- ... alary.html

Even as it played the numbers game, Hostess had to face chaos in the corner office at the worst possible time. Driscoll, the CEO, departed suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive” compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

When the Teamsters saw the court motion, Ken Hall, the union’s secretary-treasurer and No. 2 man, was irate. So much, he thought, for what he described as Driscoll’s “happy talk” about “shared sacrifice.”

[_moksha]

You knew that Hostess was in trouble when the Ding Dong became linked with witches being dead.

[_Quasimodo]

You knew that Hostess was in trouble when the Ding Dong became linked with witches being dead.

I think the true brilliance of your wit is starting to be appreciated around here, moksha.

[_Quasimodo]

It seems it's all been a little 'playing hardball' in negotiations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/hostess-union-agreement_n_2160455.html

I think that even if they do come to some sort of agreement, it will just be temporary.

Looks like bc will lose bigtime in his attempt to corner the market on Ebay.

[_subgenius]

You knew that Hostess was in trouble when the Ding Dong became linked with witches being dead.

Really? You sure it was not when they abandoned what must have been one of the best marketing campaigns ever?

[_moksha]

Viva la Mexico!
(Where Obama has been stashing jobs since day one)

What was Obama thinking when he forced NAFTA on us? Or when he forced Bain Capital to outsource jobs?