Why Did Hostess Go Bankrupt? [Pic]

Submitted by: whodat6484 4 years ago

It was the union"s fault, of course. Right?
There are 76 comments:
Male 5,608
Day before the negotiation, the reps met at an informal discussion...



BCTGM Dude: "F*ck takin` a drop! I`m gonna birdie this!!"
BCTGM Squad: "Look at that guy, he`s a fighter!"
Teamster Squad: "We`re screwed..."
0
Reply
Male 36,541
In the various articles linked & others I`ve looked at: Some say that in the past 10+ years the Unions have taken cuts, some say no cuts (layoffs though) and others say the BCTGM demanded a 1% increase for each of the next 3 years.

There`s a lot of articles written, and very vew facts to be found!

Those huge, built-in increases to the pensions and other funds? THAT is what Hostess was trying to cut -rightly or not- it`s what drove the company under.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Please cite proof that the workers demanded a pay raise[/quote]

Me, CodeJockey, 5Cats et al did not say anything to this effect. In fact we said market forces and missteps on part of the management did lead to the financial erosion of Hostess. The Unions however namely the BCTGM were asking for ridiculous pensions and medical benefits (which management shouldn`t have agreed to in the first place) and the BCTGM`s decision to go on strike was the final act that drove Hostess into liquidation. Hell even the Teamsters laying some of the blame on the BCTGM.
0
Reply
Male 36,541
[quote]...STFU 5Cats.[/quote]

@madest: Why, is my shirt tucked in or something?


There you go: smoke another doobie and... you know...

@CodeJockey: Thanks for the support! @madest seems to think NO ONE (except himself) has ANY right to ANY opinion... especially Canadians!

[quote]It was announced in April and their full salaries were set to be reinstated "no later than Jan 1." Now THAT is to laugh!![/quote]

@chalket: let me understand this:
He gives up $900,000 pay...
...and you laugh at him... for not giving anything up...

What do you want? Blood? A kidney? What?
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Everything Hostess makes has become more and more "evil" and unhealthy and guiltful over the last decade or two. That sure as hell hasn`t helped business I`m sure. But piss-poor management was the nail in the coffin.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
5Cats: YOU look again. I was referring to the CEO (Greg Rayburn) who made the decision to cut salaries for himself and 3 other execs. So, yes, you DO have "reading comprehension" problems. It`s not "to laugh," it`s kinda sad, I thought Canada had better public schooling. *sigh*

Anyway, once again, he was NOT being altruistic. It was a symbolic act in response to their creditors complaint that they had converted prior bonus plans to salary trying to sidestep bankruptcy compensation regulations. It was announced in April and their full salaries were set to be reinstated "no later than Jan 1." Now THAT is to laugh!!

Please cite proof that the workers demanded a pay raise. They had already accepted cuts in pay and benefits when the company illegally stopped funding the pensions they had already agreed to. You can conjecture they demanded "RAISE OUR PAY!" but without a link that is just baseless conjecture, and rather silly too.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@MeGrendel
I admit I did misread that bit, thanks, though it still illustrates a major problem in our society`s current pro-corporate mindset. Thanks for the correction (though no thanks for being a dick about it). As a liberal, facts are what I thrive on and strive for (unlike you) so I do try to be appreciative and acknowledge when I am corrected (again, unlike you). But hey, at least you`ve now proven you`re capable of recognizing a fact when you see one... some of us have been wondering about that. Way to go!
0
Reply
Female 362
I`m going to hope that the recipes are bought by another company and the same things come out by another company with another name. I really loved the Hostess 100 calorie packs; they were a great way to calm sugar cravings.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
whodat, what part of that debt/cost mentioned next to 2009 is adjustable?
0
Reply
Male 3,909

0
Reply
Male 5,608
Madest, that seems a bit harsh. Some of us weren`t aware that you are conversation moderator here.

Were you in this company? If you were, is there some insight you can add?
0
Reply
Male 7,353
rickwhite-"I hope each and every one of you union-bashers gets to experience unfair treatment at work"

Let`s see, the only real time I suffered `unfair treatment at work`, it was condoned BY the Union (that`s why I`ll never work for a Union again) or fell under the heading of EOE or other politically correct crap.

rickwhite-"maybe even a wage reduction"

I`ve had to do that, too. ALSO caused by, and condoned by, The Union.

rickwhite-"unpaid weekend work"

The only unpaid work I`ve ever done is volunteer work...which, of course, kinda the definition of.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
STFU 5Cats. If you knew anything about business you`d be working. Besides this isn`t your affair. It`s not your country nor your company. Your views on this subject are meaningless to everyone.
0
Reply
Male 36,541
[quote]...the CEO...[/quote]
Look again, it was the "top CEOs" PLURAL, probably meaning 6 of them. And I lack "reading comprehension"? It is to laugh!!

[quote]and that CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay.[/quote]
As others have said, that is the USA trend over 30+ years, NOT a single thing relates it to Hostess`s executive`s pay, nothing.

[quote]Where`s the bring forced to give the unions workers raises three times or face a walk-off? That`s not on there.[/quote]
@truTenrMan: Since that FACT doesn`t fit @WhoDat`s and others` "narrative" it is ignored!

They claim the Unions were "negotiating" but fail to say what their demands were: A company that`s losing a million bucks a WEEK must... RAISE OUR PAY!
How reasonable!
0
Reply
Male 5,608
Rick, I`m not bashing unions for the sake.

This is not a sensible situation. Anyone including one of the two labor negotiators could understand what C11 was and they were getting ready to do C22.

You don`t strike while the company is talking to DIP financing. It kinda removes the lenders` faith in the company to continue operating.

Like I said before, I think 8% pay cut was not nearly enough for this thing to have worked.
If I couldn`t break even, I`d probably have quit a lot sooner after offering to sell the company to the employees in an exchange to attempt debt reduction (sounds like that`s exactly what they were attempting, just not deeply enough.)
0
Reply
Male 579
Really? and not one word about the insane union demands over the years? How about 800 different insurance plans (forced by union collaborative bargaining) or double driving to deliveries? Or the driver cannot unload, another union paid worker must do that? That list goes on and on and on... There is plenty of blame to go around on this one kiddos.
0
Reply
Male 151
Why are Americans so passionate about eroding their standard of living?

Do you want to work like the Chinese? $40/week, 12 hour days, and be THANKFUL for that?

I`ve worked union jobs. Believe it or not, MOST of the workers busted their asses. Sure, a couple were lazy drunks abusing the union... but the majority worked hard. It`s just like a non-union environment (that I`ve also worked in) where most of the people work hard, and a couple jerks take long lunches, download responsibilities to others, and leave early... often some of the higher-paid employees. And they were NEVER disciplined or terminated.

I hope each and every one of you union-bashers gets to experience unfair treatment at work, maybe even a wage reduction or unpaid weekend work. Enjoy.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
$180 million in compensation!! Wow I never new it was the hazardous to make pastry!
0
Reply
Male 543
if you don`t really wanna work, join a union or get a government job
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Where`s the bring forced to give the unions workers raises three times or face a walk-off? That`s not on there.
0
Reply
Male 14,775
Greedy workers and their greedier unions.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
chalket-"CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay"
Bakcagain21-"and that CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay"

From reading the article, that statistic was not referring to Hostess CEO`s.

But hey, don`t let facts get in your way.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
Chalket, I am aware of the timing. Re-read that post; I was making a point:

What they proposed, 8% pay decrease, does not appear to be enough to make a significant difference. They really just plain old needed to shrink by 18 to 20%, 3300 to 3700 people.

8% was probably a last attempt to get everyone to agree on conditions required for new financing.
Instead, they were met by a work stoppage.

Would you lend money to people you knew couldn`t pay their previous lender if conditions had not changed? (Remember: The previous lender is going to get effed by the new deal.)
0
Reply
Male 559
Privatize profit, socialize loss.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@Bakcagain21
My point was 1) that the CEO who made that "benevolent" pay cut had just become CEO after the bankruptcy was started, 2) that he STARTED at $100,000 a month, and 3) that the company (or rather the hedge funds that bought it) poured all their income into exec pay instead of equipment, marketing or workers.

Incidentally, for you and 5Rats both, I AM NOT TRYING TO GIVE A REASON FOR THEM GOING BUST. I am simply rebutting their claim that "It`s all due to those %@#$@ Unions!" as so many here seem to be buying into. Hostess has been struggling for a long time, there are many reasons they failed and most of them relate to poor management decisions.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
5Rats: "Your link suggests 2 BILLION"
In a graphic, but all the other data says a total of $1.2B, so...? no proof there. And no one said anything about 6 paychecks covering the full debt, even including their FULLY FUNDED pension and severence (unlike their `normal` workers`).

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. You seem to see everything as supporting your own preconceptions, regardless of fact. I guess I should be expecting that from you by now.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@CodeJockey
$1.2B is what they owe now. $110M was the concession in 2009 (to help resolve the 2004 bankruptcy).

@5Rats: I`ve never used the 300% figure, the raises ranged from 75% to 80%, THEN they pulled that symbolic $1 trick to avoid a lawsuit (and it was $1 for 4 execs for just 8 months, it was set to end Dec 31st). Yes, Truth > Lies, you just need to learn the truth.

No, though union concession agreements aren`t often made public, "substantial concessions by the two big unions" should be enough. Another hint: in 2009, Mr. Peruzzi agreed to give up half his weekly base pay, going to $100 a week from about $209, forcing him to depend more on his commissions
0
Reply
Male 560
@chalket"I guess you also missed the part that says he wasn`t CEO until after they filed for bankruptcy and "his salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month," and that CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay. But it was the overpriced workers that did them in, right? Yeah, right."

So a CEO who wan`t a CEO and didn`t get wage until after bankruptcy, was the reason hostess went bust/ I don`t get the point you`re trying to make here
0
Reply
Male 36,541
@chalket: The point (which you`ve OBVIOUSLY missed) is that the CEOs did NOT "raise their pay 300% in April" as @WhoDat claimed (on another htread) BUT IN FACT cut it to NOTHING!

Truth > Lies. Agree? Yes or no.

Your Links: One says "saved $110 million" in labour costs BUT it doesn`t say how. Lay-offs? Wage cuts? Reduced hours?
The other says: thousands lost their jobs.
That suggests NO pay reductions were involved...

YOUR link also suggest 2 BILLION in unfunded Union liabilities...

Tell me again how 6 CEO`s paycheques are going to cover THAT... Sorry, that @WhoDat making that claim... OH NO! It was you too!

"...had six CEOs, all were paid many, many times what the workers get" = LOLZ!

Hey! At least you provided links! Too bad they didn`t support your position or anything...

Your links held LOTS of info! Mostly supporting the "right side"...
0
Reply
Male 36,541
@sbeelz: Did you even GLANCE at @Baalthy`s "Forbes Link"? Do you imagine it`s a "well reasoned piece of journalism"??
IT`S NOT! It`s a short "fluff bit" with NO RESEARCH at all!
So STFU. I`m so sick of lib-tards reading the "headline" and telling me what`s false is true (or vice-sersa...)

@WhoDat: Didn`t you suggest to stop paying the "executives" and give their wages to the "workers"? Might have been another thread.

Overall: It`s the impression I`ve gotten from your posts. If you`ll deny thinking/saying that I`d be glad to admit I`ve made a mistake...

Meanwhile, you continue to spout the "300% pay increase" (retracted by the source!) when in fact they CUT their own pay to $1 in April...

Hey! There`s plenty of blame to go around, but pretending the Union is comprised of "angels from heaven itself" is bull-drat!


0
Reply
Male 5,608
[quote]Since 2002, the company has had six CEOs, all were paid many, many times what the workers get, and they all got really hefty golden parachutes when they left as failures. But the unions killed the company. Yeah, right.[/quote]
Yes. It was.

Look at the infographic above: $1.2B. $110M ain`t sh*t compared to their debt.

8% wasn`t going to fix that. The officers` measly $10M was spit in the Grand Canyon.
In order to get back on track, they likely needed to get rid of about 18% of the non-fixed costs (labor,) something like 3400 people then, launch a new product line in order to re-grow.

Look, you frequent a site that regularly posts "this is why you are so fat." America is currently on a trend toward healthier living and these people specialized in junk food. They needed to shrink but, didn`t.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
[quote"> All these folks claiming the Unions "gave many concessions" over the past 10+ years?? I`ve yet to even hear a rumour of one, nevermind a verifiable example. [/quote">


CNN: "substantial concessions by the two big unions. Annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million; thousands of union members lost their jobs."
Business Insider: "In the deal that allowed Hostess to come out of bankruptcy, the unions agreed to concessions that would save the company around $110 million a year in labor costs."
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@5Rats: Yes, the HuffPo story says some execs salaries were cut to $1 in April (a whopping 7 months!). It also says "that was after Hostess had already awarded the company`s top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent." That $1 salary was in response to accusations of manipulating executive salaries to get around bankruptcy compensation rules. How noble of them to take a token pay cut to avoid being sued!

I guess you also missed the part that says he wasn`t CEO until after they filed for bankruptcy and "his salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month," and that CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay. But it was the overpriced workers that did them in, right? Yeah, right.

Since 2002, the company has had six CEOs, all were paid many, many times what the workers get, and they all got really hefty golden parachutes when they left as failures. But the unions killed the company. Yeah, right.
0
Reply
Male 96
I hear ya! These 401K-ers and nonreps pick and choose the unions they wanna bash..I guess the Twinkie union was an easy target. They can`t bash the ones that work.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@5Cats - Please tell me where I said, "FIRE all the CEOs and let the Union run the company."

@USAF27 - That`s right, brother, been there, done that, got the scars to prove it! The IBEW is the only union I`ve ever been with, my brother as well, so I guess we really do have our sh*t together. I`ve been on board for about 6 years, my brother for 8, never had a problem, and never heard of any problems like this from the old-timers.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@5Cats- Even Forbes is calling out Hostess for wrongfully blaming unions for their downfall. Sit down and shut up.
0
Reply
Male 36,541
Another Opinion
Lee Doren is a very smart guy!

It seems the "300% Raise" story has captured the imaginations of the Unionists and the left... too bad it`s not true!

However, the left never lets "the facts" distract them from a "good narrative" eh?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
USAF: The IBEW/NECA is neither here nor there. This is BCTGM we`re talking about. Unions can be beneficial but by the same token they can overinflate the cost of labor. That`s what happened here and now Hostess is about go defunct because of it.
0
Reply
Male 96
The Union/Nonunion thing is like the I`m a cat person/dog person fight or the Harley/Jap Bike debate..."If I have to explain it to you, you`ll never understand". My union in a sense, does run the companies. Most if not all union BA`s were union members before being voted in. IBEW, NECA and NEMA work well as partners. Are we the exception??? All I know is I earned and will enjoy my Union & Military pension. They were not gifts...I have the scars to prove it:)
0
Reply
Male 36,541
Foamy Squirrel Says: No More Twinkies!

"Unions run the companies" @USAF27: In a way, yes. Is that a "good thing" though? Shouldn`t, just for an example, the people who ACTUALLY OWN the companies have a say in the matter too?

The Union turned down 25% ownership for it`s employees, WHY?

All these folks claiming the Unions "gave many concessions" over the past 10+ years?? I`ve yet to even hear a rumour of one, nevermind a verifiable example.
0
Reply
Male 36,541
@SunnyNPhilly: So they`re making $3.00 per year now?

Read @CodeJockey`s Link!
from HuffPost:
The 300% raise story was incorrect, a mistake! Here is the correction, as well as other information.

And anyone who claims HuffPost has "right wing bias" will get smacked with a rolled up newspaper...
0
Reply
Male 645
but hey atleast the ceo got a 300% raise this year. Go amerikuh!
0
Reply
Male 36,541
@DrProfessor: If you`ll check @CodeJockey`s link? Since April they`ve ALL been earning $1 a year... as I expected. I win the bet!

@WHoDat: FIRE all the CEOs and let the Union run the company? I`m sure the SHAREHOLDERS would disagree with you...
AND they STILL wouldn`t have enough to stay afloat! "Tax the Rich"... where have I heard THAT before?... Marx? Mao? Obama?

THAT is why (iirc) 25% of OWNERSHIP in the company would turn over to employees! DUH!

@USAF27: "Owe" the most to, my bad typo!
Reality time: there IS NO MONEY! So in exchange for their "owed" pension funds the employees would get 25% of the company itself! Of course if the company loses money? Well that`s too bad, eh?
The shareholders are already on the hook. The Unions bluffed, and lost, with the stakes being the jobs of their members.

Now they get... nothing!

0
Reply
Male 96
@5cats..If you don`t mind sir, I`ll finish your sentence; " WHO does Hostess OWN the most to? The Unions"..Because the pensions were under-funded for years and NOTHING was paid into them for over a year. This benefit was part of the wage package, so in effect, they already had a pay cut
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@5cats- cite your sources or leave off. "I`ll bet" doesn`t count for much
0
Reply
Male 2,085
I know for a fact the drivers took massive pay cuts for the company. Many saw their paychecks cut by over $20,000 a year and their healthcare cost rise to boot.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Would you be willing to compromise by taking a pay cut & benefit reduction after your bosses got a raise 6 months ago?[/quote]

Appeal to emotion, going on strike is risky. So much so strikers would stand to lose a lot more if it failed. Likewise there`s no certainty that my boss would walkaway without a loss either. Namely reduced output from a slashed workforce which would lead to less pay or a lower position or no job at all. Most pensions don`t provide as much income as a business does.
0
Reply
Male 560
Hostess had been very close before a few times. But it`s hard to restructure your debt and make yourself competitive when the unions refuse to accept any change that impacts them. Take a look at the Guardian in the UK it is losing around £100,000-a-day. So the journalists etc are currently voting whether to strike at the redundancy packages at £100,000 package for voluntary redundancy. Workers striking and refusing to take a hit out of , "it`s not our fault" or "why should I have to suffer for managements drat up". Doesn`t change the fact the company is no longer profitable people aren`t buying at a quantity or a price which is affordable. So yes the Unions weren`t 100% to blame but they sure as hell made sure it was redundancy for their employees and no hope of refinancing and carrying on for a bit (as they`d pulled off twice before). And I just hope everyone is happy their union fee`s and pride in striking was the final nail in the coffin.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
whodat, Baal
Read the correction:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/gregory-rayburn-raise_n_2147043.html
Converting one`s compensation to salary is sh*tty.
It was not a raise.
At the time of closing, they had agreed to $1 a year until emerging.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Debt is slavery. That is all.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Would you be willing to compromise by taking a pay cut & benefit reduction after your bosses got a raise 6 months ago?
0
Reply
Male 36,541
[quote]Let`s not forget that the CEO and some other executives received pay increases...[/quote]
@WhoDat & @Baalth: Yeah! It`s called "looting a burning building" eh? When the "writing was on the wall" they took the money and ran. BUT that was after 10+ years of TRYING to keep Hostess afloat!
A few millions to Executives doesn`t compare to $860 million AND GROWING the Unions were owed. And more to other creditors!
I`ll bet those Execs haven`t had a raise in a decade. And rightfully so! If your company is losing money, as a CEO YOU should lose money too!

@Baalth: Your link was an "opinion piece" and not a fact-driven article. She vaguely mentions "pay increases" for executives... OVER THE PAST 32 YEARS??? I should HOPE SO!
Unless you find some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of workers wages NOT going up? (aside from the final offer) it`s just poop-tossing...
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Are you seriously trying to justify executives of a bankrupt and failing company giving themselves pay raises?[/quote]


No, in fact the bad PR from that decision did its share of damage to Hostess. I don`t blame the BCT entirely, but they really should`ve cut their losses and accepted the deal rather than striking. Unfortunately the BCT and other unions alike must also respond to market forces.
0
Reply
Male 36,541
OMG! The Twinkie Defence!
I`d forgotten about that @CaptK! lolz!

@AntEconomist: As usualy, you`re correct! (and concise! unlike myself...)

When Hostess started NOT making profits any more, back 10+ years ago, it CAUSED them to pile up debt! Their sales & profits were DOWN, but Unions made darn sure their costs stayed UP!
So not only did Unions "break the camel`s back" with the strike, they weakened the camel in the first place!
Are they 100% to blame? NO! Competition, market trends, recession, management mistakes, ALL contributed too. But they`re just as responsible as management... if not more since they refused to compromise!

And as @Cajun wisely points out: WHO does Hostess OWN the most to? The Unions...
0
Reply
Male 3,909
@Cajun247 - That`s about the dumbest argument I`ve heard so far. Are you seriously trying to justify executives of a bankrupt and failing company giving themselves pay raises? Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Let`s not forget that the CEO and some other executives received pay increases while the company was in the process of filing for bankruptcy. Also, the union wasn`t asking for more money, they were refusing a pay cut and benefit reduction of between 27% to 32%[/quote]

The former would`ve chump change compared to the latter.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"I blame the unions" - Paraphrasing stupid people.
"It`s not the unions" - Forbes.

The unions reduced their contracts for 10 years.

Coyoteking: "asking for more money". Nope. Asking not for more money. Asking NOT to LOSE more money AGAIN in the "10 years" you think you read about but can;`t be sure.

The CEO got a 300% raise while they were going bankrupt just this last time alone. Unions, not so much.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
If you can`t make money out of selling confectionery to fat Americans, then you *deserve* to go out of business. That`s like not being able to sell alcohol to Jocks.
0
Reply
Male 94
Can i get a Twinkie bailout form? we should just get the Gov. to roll all the cup cake`s, ho-ho`s, and twinkies into a T.A.R.P. fund
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Let`s not forget that the CEO and some other executives received pay increases while the company was in the process of filing for bankruptcy. Also, the union wasn`t asking for more money, they were refusing a pay cut and benefit reduction of between 27% to 32%. It might help to get your facts straight before claiming they were asking for more money.
0
Reply
Male 37,902
0
Reply
Male 10,845
From the affidavit:
[quote]The complex and sometimes highly contentious IBC Bankruptcy lasted more thanfour and a half years and achieved only limited, incremental change to the company`s coststructure leaving the multiemployer pension benefits and costs untouched, while allowing the company to emerge as a highly levered entity. As a result, the Debtors currently have four separate tranches of long-term secured debt, under which they have aggregate outstanding liabilities of approximately $860 million.[/quote]

So let`s get this straight, Hostess tries to alleviate legacy costs (medical, pension et al) from an earlier bankruptcy and now has $860 million owed to Unions in the form of collateral. Sorry hard NOT to take my eyes off the union here.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
So a company that is already in debt and has hit bankruptcy (twice in the last 10 years I think I read) is put into a further problem with the union asking for more money? Yeah still the union`s fault. Unions are bad for business, get over it and stop defending them. They had a use once in our history, now they are no longer necessary and cause more problems than they prevent or fix
0
Reply
Male 140
Pro-union or not, it is definitely true that Hostess screwed themselves up over the years.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Unions, Obama, evil moneyz loving corporations... Whatever suits yer fancy.
0
Reply
Male 371
For gods sake, debt didn`t make them go bankrupt. One accumulates debt as a result of approaching bankruptcy. It`s like saying that someone died from progressively declining health.
0
Reply
Male 37,902
0
Reply
Male 37,902

The Rasbury Zingers were my favorite.


0
Reply
Male 37,902
0
Reply
Male 37,902

It`s Obama`s fault.
It`s always Obama`s fault.

OldOllie, can I get an amen?
0
Reply
Male 27
shame shame shame shame
0
Reply
Female 99
this is a stupid debate, yet I will add my 2 cents anyway. they didn`t blame the union, that was just the final straw that broke the camel`s back.
0
Reply
Male 2,631
I wonder if he union boss` will avail themselves of the... Twinkie Defense... Yeah, I went there...
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I don`t really care about this useless debate, which is literally the most useless debate possible. Sometimes things happen that either can`t or shouldn`t be applied to Obama or Romney. Twinkies are one of those things.


But I did learn one thing. Apparently, debt killed Hostess. Maybe debt, in all forms, isn`t so good after all.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Bad enough they went under, shame they felt that had to blame the Union for it.
0
Reply
Male 3,909
Link: Why Did Hostess Go Bankrupt? [Pic] [Rate Link] - It was the union`s fault, of course. Right?
0
Reply