![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I need to say one thing at the start, because the silliest rumor on Twitter is "There will be no more Twinkies!" Which is ridiculous: whether Hostess liquidates or not, there will be more Twinkies. Hostess has a number of problems, none of which are "people don't eat Twinkies any more". If Hostess goes into liquidation bankruptcy, then some other bakery will buy the Twinkie brand name and recipe and start making Twinkies. Very likely, some one will buy the Hostess brandname itself and produce Hostess cupcakes and many if not all of their most popular snack cakes. They may not be quite the same, and there may be a delay in production, but they'll go on.
That aside, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting opinion piece by Holman Jenkins on the problems at Hostess, suggesting that the core problem is union vs union. It appears Hostess's distribution costs are excessively high for their product: Jenkins argues this is due to the costs of Teamsters contracts and union rules. The bakers' union, therefore, is betting that their members will be better off under whatever entity buys Hostess out of liquidation -- which won't have the unusually high distribution costs and therefore will be able to pay the bakers a market wage instead of the below-market ones that are all Hostess can afford.
I have not done any research into the situation on my own, but this struck me as pretty interesting and the most rational explanation I'd heard for what's going on, so I figured I'd share.
That aside, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting opinion piece by Holman Jenkins on the problems at Hostess, suggesting that the core problem is union vs union. It appears Hostess's distribution costs are excessively high for their product: Jenkins argues this is due to the costs of Teamsters contracts and union rules. The bakers' union, therefore, is betting that their members will be better off under whatever entity buys Hostess out of liquidation -- which won't have the unusually high distribution costs and therefore will be able to pay the bakers a market wage instead of the below-market ones that are all Hostess can afford.
I have not done any research into the situation on my own, but this struck me as pretty interesting and the most rational explanation I'd heard for what's going on, so I figured I'd share.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 01:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 02:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:01 pm (UTC)I wonder if the unions could afford to buy out Hostess if it's going to be liquidated for pennies on the dollar...
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 03:04 pm (UTC)Indeed! Thank you for providing my Laugh of the Day. :D
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-22 12:41 am (UTC)Winston Zeddemore: What do you mean, big?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's sample, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
Winston Zeddemore: That's a big Twinkie.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 11:11 pm (UTC)Then again, it happened to Vernors and to Sobe's Red Tea (before it was cancelleed for good) without it having to change companies.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-21 11:11 pm (UTC)