Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Right to work never tasted sweeter.

http://gma.yahoo.com/twinkies-return-ho ... money.html

I wonder how those union workers are doing right now. I wonder if they regret not taking an 8% hit and keeping their jobs vs. taking a 100% cut.

For them I shall break my diet!

Management blamed the unions, unions blamed the management.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle when two parties are pointing the finger at each other.

From what I understand poor decisions, musical chair leadership, and debt (sales were way down since people are more health conscious) taken on by management was exacerbated by wage increases from the unions leading to the collapse.

In any event, I wouldn't eat anything they sold if you paid me. A food items ingredient list should not take as long to read as a poignant Russian novel.

Great timing. I just enjoyed my last stockpiled twinkie last week.

No friends, twinkies do not last forever. I did enjoy most of that box ( chocolate filled for the curious), but had to discard the remainder this week as sime tiny mild spots had appeared on those delicious if not nutricious golden cakes.

Welcome back, Twinkie the Kid!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I find the Teamsters quote rather amusing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Twinkies with fresh Strawberries...Doesn't get any better than that !

Love the Ho Ho's and Ding Dongs!

Hooray for zingers!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Kreutz wrote:Management blamed the unions, unions blamed the management.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle when two parties are pointing the finger at each other.

From what I understand poor decisions, musical chair leadership, and debt (sales were way down since people are more health conscious) taken on by management was exacerbated by wage increases from the unions leading to the collapse.

In any event, I wouldn't eat anything they sold if you paid me. A food items ingredient list should not take as long to read as a poignant Russian novel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Really? Let me get this straight.......

Prior poor decisions, musical chair leadership, and debt in the face of a drastic decline in sales due to heightened health consciousness had put the company on the brink of insolvency, but it isn't the labor unions' fault they went under; all THEY did was go on strike and completely eliminate the company's ability to generate income.

Yeah, sure...... THAT makes all kind of sense. ..... So if you were walking along the edge of the precipice at the Grand Canyon while legally drunk and I pushed you over the edge it wouldn't be my fault at all that you fell since you were already dizzy.

SpanishInquisition wrote:Great timing. I just enjoyed my last stockpiled twinkie last week.

No friends, twinkies do not last forever. I did enjoy most of that box ( chocolate filled for the curious), but had to discard the remainder this week as sime tiny mild spots had appeared on those delicious if not nutricious golden cakes.

Welcome back, Twinkie the Kid!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Never liked Twinkies. Too sweet and too greasy. But I DID NOT KNOW they came in CHOCOLATE! Now I want to try a chocolate twinkie!

Without the unions I'd tend to bet quality will go up.
People tend to pay attention to their jobs when a pink slip is only minutes away.

I saw little difference between tire manufacturing plants in communist countries and unionized ones here in the states. In both cases the workers couldn't be fired and their work ethic, or lack of, showed it.

To hell with unions - they have outlived their usefulness in the USA.
Union membership is waaaaaay down from what it used to be. Thank God!
I just hate the fact the taxpayers have to pay the former union workers unemployment for as long as obummer sees fit.
I am glad VA is a right to work state.

Nat wrote:To hell with unions - they have outlived their usefulness in the USA.

I will not go that far, but....

When a company says we can not meet the demands of the union.....come look at the books....we will go under.....then does......

The Union could have negotiated for other options including partial control of the company, but they didn't.

I always find it strange that unions don't slowly buy up the companies that the workers work for. If they get to be a majority stakeholder they can negotiate the best contract.

dorminWS wrote:Really? Let me get this straight.......

Prior poor decisions, musical chair leadership, and debt in the face of a drastic decline in sales due to heightened health consciousness had put the company on the brink of insolvency, but it isn't the labor unions' fault they went under; all THEY did was go on strike and completely eliminate the company's ability to generate income.

Yeah, sure...... THAT makes all kind of sense. ..... So if you were walking along the edge of the precipice at the Grand Canyon while legally drunk and I pushed you over the edge it wouldn't be my fault at all that you fell since you were already dizzy.

So the short-sighted greed of management is OK but the short-sighted greed of the union is not?

Like I said this was the result of two parties, not just one.

Kreutz wrote:

dorminWS wrote:Really? Let me get this straight.......

Prior poor decisions, musical chair leadership, and debt in the face of a drastic decline in sales due to heightened health consciousness had put the company on the brink of insolvency, but it isn't the labor unions' fault they went under; all THEY did was go on strike and completely eliminate the company's ability to generate income.

Yeah, sure...... THAT makes all kind of sense. ..... So if you were walking along the edge of the precipice at the Grand Canyon while legally drunk and I pushed you over the edge it wouldn't be my fault at all that you fell since you were already dizzy.

So the short-sighted greed of management is OK but the short-sighted greed of the union is not?

Like I said this was the result of two parties, not just one.

Exactly. There's a lot of blame to go around for derailing this train.

All the same, guys......... the straw that broke the camel's back was piled on by the union. And I'd be surprised if a lot of the prior poor decisions weren't union-driven, too. As far as outsiders carping aboiut the poor management that had gone before, it seems to me that is only marginally relevant. It seems to me that if the company's inefficiency was acceptable to the stockholders, then it is nobody else's business. Part of private property rights is the right to do with it as you please.

I suspect that it's rather difficult to make a sound business descision that appeases a union.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

dorminWS wrote:All the same, guys......... the straw that broke the camel's back was piled on by the union.

Only the very last straw counts?

And I'd be surprised if a lot of the prior poor decisions weren't union-driven, too.

Who knows? I doubt the musical chair leadership and lavish executive compensation (for such a debt ridden company) were even remotely the unions fault.

As far as outsiders carping aboiut the poor management that had gone before, it seems to me that is only marginally relevant.

Just curious why you minimize managements contributions to the downfall (as you are here) while maximizing the unions. And unless I'm mistaken we're both outsiders here unless one of us had a stake in Hostess.

It seems to me that if the company's inefficiency was acceptable to the stockholders, then it is nobody else's business.

Hostess (was) privately held.

Part of private property rights is the right to do with it as you please.

In an ideal world it sure would be.

Kreutz wrote:

dorminWS wrote:All the same, guys......... the straw that broke the camel's back was piled on by the union.

Only the very last straw counts?

It's called the "but-for" test. But for the action of the union, Hostess would have continued to operate until confronted with some other crisis. To use my example, try pushing a drunk off a cliff and see if you get any breaks because he was drunk.

And I'd be surprised if a lot of the prior poor decisions weren't union-driven, too.

Kreutz wrote:
Who knows? I doubt the musical chair leadership and lavish executive compensation (for such a debt ridden company) were even remotely the unions fault.

As you point out below, neither of us knows the details. but as you acknowledge below, in a perfect world, it would be solely a matter between management and the stockholders.

As far as outsiders carping aboiut the poor management that had gone before, it seems to me that is only marginally relevant.

Kreutz wrote:
Just curious why you minimize managements contributions to the downfall (as you are here) while maximizing the unions. And unless I'm mistaken we're both outsiders here unless one of us had a stake in Hostess.

I'm not minimizing it. I'm just differentiating it. The difference is that whatever management did, it did with the acquiescence of ownership; and they all had skin in the game. The union, on the other hand, was an outside 3rd party with no investment, almost nothing to lose and every incentive to create ill will and discord so they could justify their dues by then mediating said discord. In fact, if any other supplier of any other necessary item except labor conspired with its fellow suppliers to withhold their supplies in concert except at a minimum price, the government could and probably would prosecute, fine and perhaps even incarcerate them under the antitrust laws. As a matter of New Deal policy, our government carved out a huge exception for labor, and it has been abused to (and in this case clearly beyond) the breaking point.

It seems to me that if the company's inefficiency was acceptable to the stockholders, then it is nobody else's business.

Kreutz wrote:
Hostess (was) privately held.

So what? privately held corporations still have stockholders. The only difference is that their stock is held by a small group. And that small group also usually but not always also manages the company. So the point you make buttresses my position - not yours.

Part of private property rights is the right to do with it as you please.

Kreutz wrote:
In an ideal world it sure would be.

Isn't it nice that we can sometimes agree on something?