3759
3760

articleWhat Saved Hostess And Twinkies: Automation And Firing 95% Of The Union Workforce (forbes.com)

Arzu1982Best of 2015 が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]bluegrassgazer 805ポイント806ポイント  (158子コメント)

I think we're missing the really big news in this article. In order to streamline distribution, they extended the shelf life of the product so it could be kept in warehouses before delivery to regional markets.

WTF? They were already Twinkies.

[–]subito_lucres 391ポイント392ポイント  (94子コメント)

Twinkies' incredibly long shelf life is a myth. Twinkies sure beat the hell out of real fresh pastry when it comes to longevity, but they are pretty standard as far as processed packaged foods go.

[–]Drak_is_Right 215ポイント216ポイント  (45子コメント)

I found some 20 year old twinkies at my grandparents house.

They were not edible.

[–]PinkyandzeBrain 109ポイント110ポイント  (21子コメント)

There go my plans for the zombie apocalypse.

[–]Kancho_Ninja 121ポイント122ポイント  (6子コメント)

Eat the Twinkies.

Become the Apocalypse.

[–]Devils_defense 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Eating 20 yr old twinkles is what starts it.

[–]aaronhayes26 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

I mean, I hate to break it to you, but anybody who was planning to survive off of processed pastries for an extended period of time wasn't going to last very long anyways. They have almost zero protein.

コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

    [–]OscarPistachios 104ポイント105ポイント  (12子コメント)

    You could still eat them. What happens to you later is a different story.

    コメントをもっと表示する (10 返事)

      コメントをもっと表示する (48 返事)

        [–]hohndo 42ポイント43ポイント  (50子コメント)

        Twinkies only had a shelf life of like a month on the box I thought?

        [–]mescad 49ポイント50ポイント  (32子コメント)

        Sounds about right. Snopes says they stay fresh for 25 days, which is much longer than most bakery products, because Twinkies don't contain any dairy ingredients.

        Edit: Apparently this information was outdated. In 2012 they added a stronger preservative that increased shelf life to 45 days. (source: 2nd paragraph)

        [–]RyanAdamsFamily 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

        That preservative must be the reason as to why they don't taste nearly as good as they used to - or I'm just getting old. Seriously, they used to be great - now they seem average.

        [–]x-rainy 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Zombieland lied to me...

        コメントをもっと表示する (27 返事)

          [–]bluegrassgazer 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

          There are lots of urban myths about the long shelf life of Twinkies, and a few anecdotes.

          コメントをもっと表示する (16 返事)

            コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

              [–]twistedcain 209ポイント210ポイント  (63子コメント)

              Seems like a lot of money concentrated at the top now.

              http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/28/once-bankrupt-hostess-fielding-bidders-in-2-billion-deal.html

              [–]Strange-Thingies 248ポイント249ポイント  (36子コメント)

              It's the American way. The wealthy wait for a recession/depression, scare the hell out of the populace, buy up all the national assets at historic lows so that all the value is at the top and the common man is left with dust, then proclaim economic recovery. It's a tale as old as finance itself.

              [–]ifailatusernames 55ポイント56ポイント  (0子コメント)

              And leaving the debt that brought the entity to its knees with that entity so it can go bankrupt as its assets are cherry picked.

              [–]story9252015 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

              So I'm trying to learn how the world works, did some googling: recession = period of time when trade and industrial activity are reduced + depression = long and severe recession

              So is it then the country doesn't have enough money to give to its workers due to trade being low and therefore no money coming in

              So then how does the wealthy come into play? By buying up all the national assets -- aren't the assets already owned by the company owners? Or is it that the owners can't maintain the assets because they don't have the money? -- In which case the wealthy due to recessions are slowly gaining more and more ownership of the world?

              [–]Skyrmir [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

              The corporate profits are paid out to the owners via shares, that are valued at prior to collapse prices, usually by taking out a loan to an llc that holds the actual ownership of the shares and liability of the loan. The company collapses, the llc holding the loan, declares bankruptcy after paying a second llc for consulting services. So the first llc, is gone, the loan is gone, the shares are worthless and the original company is worth dirt. At the same time the actual owner is controlling the second llc that has all the cash. If he's smart, he's doing that via a shell corporation.

              So now the original owners can buy their bankrupt company for pennies on the dollar, wipe out debt, fire nearly everyone, kill the unions and their retirement packages, and keep all the cash for doing it.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                コメントをもっと表示する (32 返事)

                  コメントをもっと表示する (26 返事)

                    [–]aeschenkarnos 636ポイント637ポイント  (440子コメント)

                    CIO President Walter Reuther was being shown through the Ford Motor plant in Cleveland recently.

                    A company official proudly pointed to some new automatically controlled machines and asked Reuther: “How are you going to collect union dues from these guys?”

                    Reuther replied: “How are you going to get them to buy Fords?”

                    Source.

                    [–]Rye631 78ポイント79ポイント  (57子コメント)

                    the computer guy will just buy a lincoln.

                    [–]mpyne 114ポイント115ポイント  (370子コメント)

                    I know this is supposed to be making a kind of funny, but the idea for Ford Motor Company is that the car sales they lose from their employees will be more than made up for by the improvement in car sales that will happen as they can make their cars cheaper.

                    Ford's employees buy a very very very small proportion of their total worldwide output nowadays.

                    [–]franklincampo 586ポイント587ポイント  (112子コメント)

                    Actually, the history behind this statement is a lot more interesting than that!

                    Henry Ford was famous for paying his workers twice what his competition paid them on the logic that a well-paid workforce could expand the market for his own product. This isn't just about selling to your own workers. It's about raising the rate for labor in such a way that your competition has to compete for talent and increase their rate as well -- leading to broader income equality across the entire country.

                    That may sound far fetched, but it really happened and it really worked. Ford's idea is credited with being one of many important factors that led to the rise of a robust American middle class.

                    So while today you may be right that they can make up for the loss of car sales from their employees with cheaper cars, in the long run they are helping to drive down the price of labor nation-wide, and this will eventually make even their cheapest attempt at producing a car prohibitively expensive for the average person.

                    [–]TheGoat_NoTheRemote 154ポイント155ポイント  (11子コメント)

                    I'm glad someone else made the obvious connection. I doubt that was said without thinking of this famous Ford policy.

                    [–]klarno 45ポイント46ポイント  (28子コメント)

                    What Henry Ford paid his workers was highly conditional: The company would send inspectors to Ford worker's homes to ensure they were living a lifestyle that they approved of. And you thought employers snooping into social media history was unethical?

                    [–]OnlyRacistOnReddit[🍰] 41ポイント42ポイント  (23子コメント)

                    Henry Ford was a big fan of Adolf Hitler as well, if I remember correctly, he actually financed some of his campaigns.

                    コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                      [–]UGotSchlonged 95ポイント96ポイント  (24子コメント)

                      You should check out the actual history. That thought that he paid his employees enough so that they could afford his cards is a myth.

                      Ford needed highly trained employees, and he had a problem with turnover. He just paid them more so they would stay working at the company.

                      [–]pigeieio 63ポイント64ポイント  (12子コメント)

                      It seems to me you are both making the same point from a different view. You don't seem to actually be disagreeing, one is just glass half full and one is glass half empty.

                      [–]Cordelius_Fudge 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Reducing turn-over was probably the main reason. Enabling the workers to afford cars is how an excellent marketing department spun it to the public.

                      [–]ColombianHugLord 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      There are a lot of good reasons to pay your employees more. Having better workers and keeping them is probably the big reason, but employees being able to afford cars was definitely a factor too.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                        コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                          [–]IUsedToBeGoodAtThis 48ポイント49ポイント  (23子コメント)

                          That is a myth. It dose not make sense beyond a thoughtless read, either.

                          Ford was competing for labor in a time when turnover was extremely high. He paid more to attract a better and more stable labor force to improve production... not to somehow raise the wealth of the middle class.

                          Same thing with work provided health care, and child care (Kaiser Shipyards). Kaiser invented both so his workers would miss less work due to illness, and they wouldn't have to not work to care for children.

                          those things are the best examples of the "invisible hand" and we're done purely to improve their bottom lines long term and in fords case a massive competitive advantage via better workers AND process. Now they are being missrepresented for some reason. Oh well.

                          http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#5ce772871c96

                          [–]chaogomu 31ポイント32ポイント  (16子コメント)

                          From all accounts, Ford was highly unpleasant to work for. he needed to pay more than anyone else for anyone to be willing to work for him.

                          He had morality police that would go to workers homes and report back if they were doing anything immoral.

                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (22 返事)

                              [–]kro762 166ポイント167ポイント  (87子コメント)

                              When are cars EVER "cheaper"? A 2002 Chevy Avalanche that I purchased was produced in Silao Mexico. The MSRP was at the time $33,800. The GM workers In Mexico were paid $1.25 an hour and no benefits to produce this truck. Keep drinking that trickle down kool aid.

                              [–]lautertun 60ポイント61ポイント  (36子コメント)

                              Exactly!

                              It's doesn't trickle down to the consumer getting a cheaper car. The trickle stops at the producer making a cheaper car and selling it at least at the same price to the consumer. Pocketing the savings.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (50 返事)

                                [–]chiruochiba 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                Ford's employees buy a very very very small proportion of their total worldwide output nowadays.

                                I think Reuther's comment referred to all union workers, not just Ford workers, buying American made cars. For example, members of the IBEW strongly advocate buying U.S. products instead of foreign ones. Of course, I have no idea what fraction of the consumer base is union affiliated, but it's certainly a larger number than just Ford workers.

                                [–]Throwaway3972 27ポイント28ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                Its not about Ford Employees in particular, its a question regarding it in a wider perspective, what happens when all companies follow suit like this? Whos going to afford to buy your vehicles then?

                                [–]BigBennP 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                what happens when all companies follow suit like this? Whos going to afford to buy your vehicles then?

                                So this is the fundamental argument of globalization.

                                So we enact free trade, some people, particularly industrial workers, lose their jobs because manufacturing is shipped off to China.

                                But at the same time, prices for consumer goods drop for everyone, and the cost of living falls a little bit. The economy moves faster, and more jobs are created, just in different areas.

                                コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                  [–]msut77 26ポイント27ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                  The point is everything is automated ...

                                  [–]MiaowaraShiro 38ポイント39ポイント  (92子コメント)

                                  Now look at an even bigger picture...what happens when all the jobs are replaced by robots?

                                  [–]UnsubstantiatedClaim 39ポイント40ポイント  (78子コメント)

                                  Humans enter the era of recreation, if I am to understand the UBI supporters.

                                  [–]groatt86 20ポイント21ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                  That is in the post-post-apocalypse

                                  First is the apocalypse, then the first post-apocalypse, and then the second post-apocalypse immediately afterwards and then the machines and humans will make peace and buy Fords.

                                  [–]MiaowaraShiro 14ポイント15ポイント  (64子コメント)

                                  UBI is an interesting concept...I'm not yet convinced it's the right step. I don't have an alternative option either though. What happens when human labor isn't needed any longer? Utopia or dystopia?

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (13 返事)

                                      [–]nogoodliar 30ポイント31ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                      And if it was just ford in a vacuum it wouldn't be a problem, but when Chevy does it, and Toyota does it, and other markets follow suit... Eventually you have high unemployment with shitty service jobs the only ones available and nobody can afford cars.

                                      [–]veive 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                      No, it's not supposed to be making a funny. It's supposed to be making an economic observation ironically enough paraphrased from a certain Mr. Henry Ford when he was arguing that reducing to an 8 hour workday and a 5 day work week for a total of 40 hours were good for business because they allowed people leisure time in which to realize they wanted things, which in turn created new business opportunities.

                                      I recommend having a read through some of his quotes here

                                      The dude made one of the biggest companies in america, successfully weathered the great depression and has a very different economic perspective from most of what's shouted by wealthy businessmen today.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (33 返事)

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                          [–]HapticSloughton 452ポイント453ポイント  (34子コメント)

                                          Never mind that the capital investment group that took over Hostess was doing the "vulture capitalist" routine of making Hostess take out loads of loans it could never repay, giving that cash to its investors, and then planned on leaving Hostess out to collapse while blaming the workers/unions.

                                          They didn't count on actual consumer demand for Hostess cakes to draw attention to the company being killed, though they kept up the "unions BAAAAD" narrative all the while.

                                          [–]Ibreathelotsofair 197ポイント198ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                          yeah they took out a shit ton of money, spent it on themselves left their manufacturing infrastructure with lines and ovens from the 70s and then blamed the workers for their insolvency. I will never buy a hostess product ever again, the company is run by the worst kind of people on the planet. Fuck Forbes double hard for this bullshit too.

                                          [–]norcal222 56ポイント57ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                          I know a bunch of former Hostess route guys who have been in the business 25-30 years. They all got completely fucked out of their pensions. The union loaned Hostess 700 million to stay afloat and keep their jobs. Hostess execs took the money and ran, still filing bankruptcy. Meanwhile all these employees get less than half of what they put away for over the majority of their career. Straight up theft from the working middle class. Wall Street wins again.

                                          [–]kingssman 53ポイント54ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          Article should read. "Top Execs overpsent on luxury and personal bonuses nearly bankrupting Hostess. Forced to fire 95% of the workforce to save the company"

                                          But that won't ever make it on Forbes.

                                          [–]dewayneestes 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                          Fuck Forbes in the facehole with a sharpened twinky.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                            [–]won_ton_day 114ポイント115ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                            The "Wallstreet took a stable company and gutted it to sell it off and kill the union" is not the narrative Forbes is selling

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (14 返事)

                                              [–]pafischer 1370ポイント1371ポイント  (335子コメント)

                                              Please remember this is an opinion piece.

                                              It completely leaves out the previous vulture capitalists who loaded the company with debt and drained it of capital. Those guys blamed the unions who took lots of cuts to keep the company afloat.

                                              There's more to the whole Hostess story than "unions bad" "firing people good".

                                              [–]cuckname 233ポイント234ポイント  (37子コメント)

                                              There's more to the whole Hostess story than "unions bad" "firing people good".

                                              there sure is a lot of capital being poured into the "unions bad" message.

                                              [–]danskal 22ポイント23ポイント  (17子コメント)

                                              They are running scared because of Bernie's popularity and his strong union message.

                                              I wouldn't be surprised if this piece is a direct reaction to Bernie's rhetoric.

                                              [–]frenzyboard 29ポイント30ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                              Another thing. Directly quoting this opinion piece.

                                              It is a good thing that Hostess and Twinkies survived (and vaguely interesting that they will float upon the stock market again), but the important point of the story is the decimation of the labor force.

                                              Is it? Is it really a good thing the company survived? Judging by the jobs it slashed, I'd say not. They still control the product that supplied those jobs, so what you have is a net loss for labor. Those are jobs that could've been filled by local bakeries. Instead, the company is charging the same amount of money for it's product, but there are fewer people who can buy it.

                                              When the same thing starts happening across every industry, it drains everyone.

                                              [–]electricblues42 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                              While it is bad for workers, technically automation isnt bad it's just progress. Now the bullshit that went into getting there isn't progress, buying a company and spending all their money the saying "we're broke! You union guys gotta go!" Is certainly not progress.

                                              Sooner or later basic minimum income is going to be the only option we have. There just aren't enough jobs for the people living here. Thank "progress"

                                              [–]FREEDOMTWINKIES [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

                                              Problem is the basic income won't come fast enough.

                                              [–]BearlyBreathing [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                              The bigger problem is that basic income is just table scraps from the capitalists who will own everything built by the rest of us. It's basically a bribe to stave off revolution.

                                              [–]electricblues42 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                              Yep, the idea of permanent semi-poverty isn't great. But it's better than real poverty.

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (19 返事)

                                                      [–]UnsubstantiatedClaim 77ポイント78ポイント  (116子コメント)

                                                      I thought the union refused to give into any consessions which was one of the reasons the old company sold to the new.

                                                      [–]wildwalrusaur 185ポイント186ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                      thats the line you'll hear from corporations every time something bad happens. It's always the unions fault because they wouldn't budge on point X in the most recent round of negotiations. What always goes unmentioned is the dozens of concessions they already made in the preceding half dozen rounds.

                                                      The union actually has far more of a vested interest in keping the company afloat than its executives do in many cases. Because, should hte company fold, the executives will all get some form of severance and have plenty of money to fall back on while they get another high powered corp gig. The blue collar guys on the other hand generally have very little saved up, and will frequently have incredibly difficult times finding comparable employement.

                                                      Its all part of the long term, well-coordinated strategy to undermine and erode unions in america.

                                                      [–]sotonohito 133ポイント134ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                      They did, but only after they found out that the company was keeping giant executive pay packages, retirement benefits, and even paying huge bonuses to executives while simultaneously asking for deep cuts from the union.

                                                      Also, the union had ALREADY given huge concessions and taken big cuts. The owners wanted even bigger cuts, all the while demanding giant bonuses for themselves.

                                                      So yeah, they did eventually stop making concessions. I can't say I blame them.

                                                      [–]pafischer 341ポイント342ポイント  (82子コメント)

                                                      That's what the new owners said. But the union said they had given many concessions and provided contract updates to prove it.

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (180 返事)

                                                          [–]chuft_captain 61ポイント62ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                          No mention of how the company was mismanaged. Nothing about the bakers going without raises for years while the executives gave themselves raises. Nothing about the pay cuts the bakers took to keep the company running. It's not even the same company. They shut down were bought, changed everything and reopened using the Hostess name, but let's pretend firing people and automating saved the company, so Forbes can say, "see, unions are bad". Hostess products taste like shit now anyway.

                                                          [–]Doeselbbin 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                          You're right on every point especially the last one.

                                                          And their food tasting like shit is what will doom them hopefully

                                                          [–]icybluetears 228ポイント229ポイント  (132子コメント)

                                                          Which is why everything is smaller and tastes like crap now. We don't buy them at all anymore.

                                                          [–]thesynod 111ポイント112ポイント  (68子コメント)

                                                          Stopping production for a long enough period to make sure you don't remember exactly what it used to taste like, while creating demand and free advertising.

                                                          [–]INM8_2 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                          the demand the day they announced the stop in production was insane. i put 3 boxes on ebay for $65 to see what would happen and they sold in less than an hour.

                                                          [–]jamzrkFaith of the heart. 75ポイント76ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                          I like how they closed down and not even months later Little Debbie and Sara Lee had Twinkies and ding dongs back on the shelf. Turns out anyone can make bun shaped sponge cake and fill it with sugary gloop very easily. They still make em too. Joke's on Hostess there.

                                                          [–]demintheAF 24ポイント25ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                          They were already bleeding money in bankruptcy. That they came back at all shows that the strategy worked.

                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (51 返事)

                                                              [–]MeetWayneKerr 34ポイント35ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                              I love Twinkies, or did, anyway. I'm not a big sugar fiend, and I fucking hate most packaged snack cakes with a hot, nasty passion. But Twinkies? I loved 'em, they were perfect. I wasn't out here trying to get publishers to pick up my Twinkie-based cookbook like that weird Spam lady, but when I wanted something sweet, I'd grab a couple Twinkies from the gas station.

                                                              I was happy when I heard Hostess had been sold, and the Twinkies would keep showing up at the store, but they're garbage now. I can't get over how much worse they taste these days, it's like they make them in an old tire factory with the same machines. When I want a Twinkie, I see if I can grab a box of Little Debbie Cloud Cakes. They're not as good as the old Twinkies, but they're a lot better than the new ones, IMO.

                                                              [–]icybluetears 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                              I'm the same way with zingers. And it's rare I eat cookies or anything sweet. But I love me some zingers.

                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                [–]ElephantManatee 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                Because they can't use transfat and reduce sizes to save costs AND to have a lower calorie/fat count per serving. Twinkies dropped 15cal per cake after the reboot. Other brands though just package stuff in smaller packs so they can have that magical 100 calorie sticker on the box. Hell just look at 8oz cans of soda vs 12oz cans, the 8oz ones actually cost more.

                                                                [–]Skreeonk[🍰] 35ポイント36ポイント  (9子コメント)

                                                                Pretty much. The Hostess brand came back and the quality of product has dropped sharply. I don't buy Twinkees any more.

                                                                [–]AllDepressedChips 21ポイント22ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                                Same with Oreos, what the fuck happened like a year and a half ago? That frosting tastes like slightly flavoured silicone now and it's a fucking sin!

                                                                [–]Orgell_Evaan 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                The texture is wrong, the taste is off, and I live too far west to get Tastycakes. .

                                                                [–]John-Garrison 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                Unfortunately, most people care much more about image and popularity than factual utility. Hostess and Twinkies can get a lot of mileage just because of their powerhouse names being seen as "a popular thing" in the minds of millions.

                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                                                                  [–]109_horses_of_fury 901ポイント902ポイント  (225子コメント)

                                                                  I worked for Interstate Brands Corp ( owners of wonder) for almost 7 yrs, this ass-hat has no clue what he is talking about. Ibc bought a lot of the company on debt and never adapted to the low-carb movement that lasted yrs and were horribly mismanaged and expected their name to carry them.

                                                                  Does this douche know there are 168 hrs in a week, I do, from working 84 hr work weeks........ It was horrible, a union was needed.

                                                                  After the man ( I forget his name) successfully negotiated a benifits cut and no raise, he was rewarded with a huge bonus- this is what prompted the union employees to want to cause ibc to fail.

                                                                  [–]Media-n 43ポイント44ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                                                  The company management and owners will blame employees for wanting too much, but if you look at these classic american businesses so many of them do not adapt to current market trends... their products are old - never updated - never new items coming out. Now a days millennials will pay a premium for higher quality products, you see that in the beer industry, in the coffee industry - local spots are big - in the restaurant industry etc... local cafes, coffee shops, diners, restaurants are all becoming more popular. Even in franchises - premium fast food etc... all got massive - millennials are more aware of crap products, junk that they are more likely to stay away from and companies like hostess never adapted.

                                                                  [–]GRZZ_PNDA_ICBR 60ポイント61ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                                                  Petition to change r/futurology to r/bleaknews

                                                                  [–]sam__izdat 245ポイント246ポイント  (113子コメント)

                                                                  a union is never not needed, unless you own the place and fired your boss

                                                                  [–]haterhipper 87ポイント88ポイント  (22子コメント)

                                                                  I've worked as a low level manager in a union shop and a contractor in both union and non Union shops and I've seen benefits to both. If the company are being assholes then a union is necessary but the threat of the workforce going union does act as a deterrent to dickish behavior without the baggage a union comes with.

                                                                  [–]virati 66ポイント67ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                  This is the unfortunate truth. It's the same with democracy: nothing works better than a monarchy with a benevolent, enlightened leader. The problem is, you can't guarantee that forever, and the someone bad gets into that position, they can do a lot of damage.

                                                                  So, we err on the side of democracy, which, in the US case, limits great and bad leaders alike to 8 years max. Yes, that comes at a cost when the leader is great, but it balances things in the long run.

                                                                  This general line of thinking has convinced me that unions are needed. Period. Always err on the side of the weaker, the little guy, the one that can be put into the gutter so easily by those in power.

                                                                  Threat of unionizing doesn't just make the company "nice" in the short term, it makes them spend a lot of money on lobbying congress to strip unions of their power, so that 10 years from now there is no "threat of unionization" and the company can go with the dickish behavior that is inevitable in the hyper-competitive, unsustainable thing we call our economy.

                                                                  [–]sam__izdat 178ポイント179ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                                                  A union isn't automatically guaranteed to be effective or even democratic, but it's the only possible political representation that labor has in productive institutions that operate in every way like private, totalitarian juntas.

                                                                  [–]NickGodfree 44ポイント45ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                  very well put. There are examples of good and bad unions, just as there are good and bad companies. The overall purpose of the union, however, is exactly as you said.

                                                                  [–]shawnaroo 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                  Unions in general are a good idea, the problem is that they tend to fall into the curse of every other large organization, which is at some point their primary goal shifts to the preservation and growth of the organization just for the sake of itself.

                                                                  A union can serve a really important role in terms of getting workers a fair deal and a better working environment, but once the workers have gotten themselves that, then the union finds itself with much less of a purpose. And some unions that have found themselves in that position have tried to justify their continued existence and growth by then demanding more than is really reasonable. That's when you end up with situations where it's all but impossible to fire an employee not matter how useless they are and other things like that.

                                                                  I don't know if there's a good solution to that, but you're certainly right that that potential problem doesn't mean that unions themselves are inherently bad or wrong.

                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (11 返事)

                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                                      [–]NiceGuyNate 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                      You mean unless you seized the means of production? :)

                                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (87 返事)

                                                                        コメントをもっと表示する (82 返事)

                                                                          [–]Bokkoel 34ポイント35ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                                                          The article is bullshit. The original business called Hostess Brands is under liquidation and is currently still being sold off piece-by-piece. Nearly everyone who worked for that old business lost their jobs. The new business called Hostess Brands, LLC is a different company who bought some of the IP from the former business liquidation sale.

                                                                          [–]Underwater_Karma 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                          people don't seem to understand that...they see the name "Hostess" and "twinkie" and think "oh, the company is doing better now".

                                                                          It's like the bank foreclosing on your house and selling it to a younger, wealthier family and all your old neighbors thinking "wow, he's doing great".

                                                                          コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                                                                            [–]LuxNocte 148ポイント149ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                                            I am shocked to discover Forbes thinks the way to make a business great again is to get rid of the Union.

                                                                            The media loves to ignore the years of mismanagement and blame Hostess's problems on the strike at the end. Bakers went without raises for years, while the executives voted themselves astronomical salaries.

                                                                            Yes, they can probably make more profit by making a crappy product. Most Americans are so broke now (because companies are doing this across the board) that they just look for the "savings".

                                                                            [–]redditor456456456456 98ポイント99ポイント  (20子コメント)

                                                                            "Free of labor obligations"

                                                                            Like making good on pension liabilities?

                                                                            [–]Roastmonkeybrains 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                            Sounds a bit political given the current climate, ditch the unions and benefits we can't afford a work force so let's all cheer automation and firing 75% of workers so we can profit. Minimum wage scare mongering for extra measure. It's a bit of an odd one.

                                                                            [–]dsa44 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            Completely different company with different product, owners, and employees. They saved the name and nothing else.

                                                                            [–]bergmanofalcatraz [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                            WTF!!! It's as if everyone has forgotten that they stole worker's pensions.

                                                                            http://www.tdu.org/media_twinkie-ceo-admits-company-took-employees-pensions-and-put-it-toward-executive-pay

                                                                            [–]Gamer_naut 146ポイント147ポイント  (38子コメント)

                                                                            If by "saved" you mean paying off all the execs. Bankrupting the business. Screwing workers out of pensions.... The yeah they "saved" the fuck out of that company. Never buy anymore of this bullshit companies products

                                                                            [–]dimechimes 20ポイント21ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                            Get rid of the labor, change the product. Is it even the same company?

                                                                            [–]NoeWanSpecial 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                            Love zingers, the occasional twinkies, but since the return it does not taste the same at all, for example the zingers taste like the great value equivalent, stale and harder.

                                                                            [–]ktchong 13ポイント14ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                                                            This has nothing to do with unions. Case in point: China does not have unions. The infamous Apple and Samsung supplier, Foxconn in China, does not have unions and employ the cheapest human labors. Yet recently Foxconn has recently replaced 60,000 human workers:

                                                                            Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36376966

                                                                            A.I., automation, machines and robots are replacing human workers and taking over, with or without unions.

                                                                            [–]chipmcdonald 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            Turn off adblocker? No thanks. If a page can't figure out how advertise with just a graphic their loss.

                                                                            Ultimately, unbridled capitalism means the lowest wages a human will endure. There is no way around that, it's a matter of whether or not the U.S. wants to be "China" or come back to reality and realize civilization can't kow tow to open ended philosophy meant to favor oligarchs.

                                                                            [–]ADONGINMYMOUTH [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

                                                                            Ill never understand the unions are bad mentality.

                                                                            Unless if you work at like a hip tech giant/start up company you need a union.

                                                                            Ill never understand the hardworking folks who hate unions.

                                                                            [–]jlv270 34ポイント35ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                            "But I learned in Econ 101 that a Hunger Games dystopia is the only viable alternative, numbers don't lie." Chomsky is right about our educational system being obedience filters.

                                                                            [–]Superman19986 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                            And I can honestly say they taste worse now than before. Maybe it's just me, but they seem smaller and don't taste as awesome as I think they should.

                                                                            [–]shyhalu 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                                            They fail to mention that the quality of twinkies has gone downhill and many former customers were extremely unhappy with the new taste.

                                                                            They didn't save Hostess, they ensured it will have a slow death rather than remain a household name. Not that its a problem as far as I'm concerned, but its simply a false positive with long term repercussions.

                                                                            No company goes from local bakeries/skilled cooks and etc to mass produced loss of quality without severely damaging their reputation as well as product.

                                                                            [–]the_eric 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            I would rather live in a world without Twinkies than live in a world where corporate America thinks it's okay to fire everyone and replace the with robots. I don't know what Hostess plans to do with all their money in the bank, but it would help the economy more if that money went to workers who would spend it.

                                                                            [–]JiggyJinjo 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            shitty website requiring you to turn off adblock, how to make sure I never visit your site again

                                                                            [–]RamadanDaytimeRation 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                            The truth is that they deliberately drove Hostess past the point of bankruptcy, waited a week, and then swooped in, in order so they could shaft the unionised workforce.

                                                                            This is not a feelgood success story. This is a story of a cynical ploy that worked. The evil greedy 1% won.

                                                                            They could have pulled off pretty much the same "rescue" a week earlier, but that would have forced them to at least fire their long-term loyal employees fairly . This way they could just completely, massively fuck over these working poor, for beefier bonuses to super-rich "leaders" and as a warning to others. The latter of which this article and its posting here chiefly functions as.
                                                                            Remember people, collectively standing up for your rights is very bad and will only hurt you. Relinquish your rights voluntarily! Every man for themselves, and there's no way that would leave you in particular worse off, because surely your super-savvy success sense will trump the incomparable power of all those "well-meaning" C-officers and profiteers who are your corporate masters and betters. /s

                                                                            [–]cardboardguru13 55ポイント56ポイント  (21子コメント)

                                                                            First, the title is false. The old Hostess company was not saved. That company under that name no longer exists. its assets were sold off.

                                                                            Second, I don't accept the premise that bad union contracts were the reason for the company's bankruptcy. These weren't new contracts. The company made bad business decisions.

                                                                            Third, the new company that owns the Hostess name simply runs its business differently.

                                                                            Can you make greater profits eliminating humans from your workforce? Yes. Is it necessary to eliminate humans from your workforce? No.

                                                                            [–]M1ster_MeeSeeks 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                            The company was gutted by private equity. It wasn't the company's decision making that was the problem. It was financial engineering + recklessness that occurred during their prior bankruptcy.

                                                                            コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

                                                                              [–]KopOut 51ポイント52ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                                              So, in other words, the only thing that was a net plus to society about the Twinkie: good paying jobs, is gone.

                                                                              What remains is profit for a select few rich people and a product that ruins health and costs the taxpayers money to care for customers... To the future!

                                                                              [–]marsten 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                              The real story here is that the US is shifting toward a model of locally-made baked goods, like what Europe has. Food with a shelf life of a day or two, that actually tastes like food. In the future we'll have more baking jobs than ever, they just won't be factory jobs making engineered food.

                                                                              [–]BBQheadphones [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                              Can I just say I'm sick of forbes simply because they force you to turn off ad block before viewing their site?

                                                                              [–]historycat95 168ポイント169ポイント  (150子コメント)

                                                                              We had a contract with 1000s of employees, but we broke that contract so that profits could go from millions to 10s of millions.

                                                                              You're welcome, pesants.

                                                                              [–]DyslexiaforCure 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                              Hostess needed saving because of serious mismanagement by the people whof got great severance packages after having borrowed against the pension fund for the employees. They ruined the fund for employee retirement, screwed up the company, fired the workers, and still got paid millions of dollars.

                                                                              Hostess may be an operating business entity, but calling it saved when they had to ruin the lives of nearly 7,000 people to do it after people who caused the business problems were all well paid.

                                                                              [–]Hyperion1144 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                              Also the cakes are smaller and quality has gone down. The don't taste as good anymore. I've tried "new hostess" a couple of times, no more. They were never great, now they are just gross.

                                                                              [–]chiefweaklung [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                              No, that was just greed.

                                                                              Economic exploitation...plus I can no longer buy wonder bread,please die executives.

                                                                              [–]vt31008 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                                                                              Can anyone tell me why there is so many removed comments?

                                                                              [–]il1k3c3r34l [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                                                                              Jesus Christ Reddit, the 47 top comments are [removed]? "The last bastion of free speech on the Internet" - my ass. I can't even read a topic anymore without scrolling midway down to see the first "top" comment that wasn't removed.

                                                                              Reddit is in its death throes as an open and public forum for discussion and sharing. Good riddance I suppose.

                                                                              [–]huck_ 43ポイント44ポイント  (47子コメント)

                                                                              Automating shitty jobs is a GOOD THING. The fact that all of the money saved from doing that is going to the top 1% is the problem. Trying to stop progress in technology isn't the answer.

                                                                              [–]Arzu1982Best of 2015[S] 40ポイント41ポイント  (23子コメント)

                                                                              Are you assuming that automation will only stop at "shitty jobs" ?

                                                                              [–]fardok 12ポイント13ポイント  (14子コメント)

                                                                              Well it's going to affect most manual repetitive jobs first.

                                                                              [–]Scizmz 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                                                              Actually there are a lot of jobs that are very good paying middle class jobs that have been automated out completely. For example legal clerks and paralegals used to be much more prevalent. Now however it's simple to just search case law with a computer and not have to use volumes and volumes of books to do it. One person can do the work of 5 easily.

                                                                              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                                                コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

                                                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (23 返事)

                                                                                    [–]Russell_Jimmy 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                                                    "Union Workforce".

                                                                                    Yeah, because workers demanding fair wages and labor practices definitely impacts the bottom line.

                                                                                    Fuck those people for acting collectively!

                                                                                    Could you imagine how successful Hostess and other companies would be if we could go back to slavery? Profits galore!

                                                                                    Mismanagement can't be the problem. Lack of foresight can't be the problem. Ignorance of the buying attitudes of the consumer can't be the problem.

                                                                                    Nope. It's because Bob on the assembly line wants to buy a house, own a reliable car, and actually be able to watch his kids grow up. That selfish fucker.

                                                                                    He also wants to have access to a doctor, be able to stay home when he isn't feeling well, have a safe environment to work in, and get paid when he works over 8 hours a day or 40 hours in a week.

                                                                                    These are clearly demands that no corporation should have to abide by. Amirite?

                                                                                    [–]Koshindan 17ポイント18ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                                                    Yeah, their product is crap now. And now I can avoid it even more knowing the troubles they've caused.

                                                                                    [–]Ask10101 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                                                    I work in Industrial Automation. 95% of our customers have a heavily union based workforce. Eventually the Union's demands become so untenable that the company is willing to shell out tens of millions of dollars to have the majority of their labor force replaced. Most of the jobs replaced will be on the low end of the experience/responsibility spectrum. Which means they primarily affect the entry level and poorly educated employees. It's a sad reality.

                                                                                    [–]not__banksy 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                                                    Hey there, actual former employee of Hostess (management-side). The unions were not completely to blame; in fact, it was mostly the truck drivers of the union that were to blame. They kept wanting the unreasonable rates. What hurt the company the most was a bad case of "too many chiefs, not enough Indians": too many people at the top of the company. I find this article quite uninformed.

                                                                                    The article is spot on about the automation.

                                                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (676 返事)