I could be wrong...

That is the primary issue with Hostess vs other snack cake makers. Competition. Little Debbie and Mrs. Freshley's off brands are cheaper, so in today's economy more attractive to the new budget concerned consumer. Both sides in the Hostess issue should of been aware of market share dropping based on cheaper products on the market. Yet to increase the pay and benifits would lead to a hike in the product cost, again putting the lessor priced items from competitors in an even stronger market position.

In bulk packaging I have not bought Hostess prodects in a long time due to cost, a Little Debbie or Mrs Freshley's clone being a better choice for the money. Now I did get an individual pack of Hostess products at a convienience store along with my fuel and Coke.

I don't think that management had an overwhelming blame in the issue, market forces, competition, and overall economy had far more in the equation. What sells more Wonder Bread at $1.95+ per loaf or Wal Mart bread at $1.19 per loaf in todays economy?

Brand Equity in today's economy is going to come second to price, it is a natural market force. How did GM go from near 50% of the market due to Brand Equity to near 20% in the far more price and quality market of today. I go back to 1973 when you had a choice of a $4500 Chevy Vega, or (flame on) Ford Pinto or a $3200 Toyota Carina, which sold better and why? Chevy and Ford had the Brand Equity but were self destructing in quality and price due to increased domestic labor costs, and now faced with actual competion other than each other.

agentwhale007 wrote: oldsoldier wrote: And on the other side agreeing to all Union demands and trying to market a $2.50 twin packs of twinkies would be sustaianable for how long with the competitive 'snack cake' market. Getting off the union thing for a second:  Here's the weird thing about Hostess -- it has enormous brand equity. Every snack cake maker ever has had a Twinkies clone. Little Debbie has a clone for everything Hostess makes. As does Bimbo, the Central-American company with a huge presence in the U.S. now. Got excited there for a second . . . then I realized this was still a snack cake-related conversation. Yet, people are willing to go out and pay crazy marked up prices specifically for Twinkies. Amazon is selling Ding-Dongs for $63 per 12-pack case and people are buying them up like crazy. There is enormous pull in that brand.  How do you let something like that fail? How do you not pursue marketing (When's the last time you saw a Hostess commercial?), sponsorship, etc.?  I agree with you that, if I were running the union, I'd have probably taken the negotiated pay restructure again to save that many jobs.  But the fact that a company with that much stored brand equity was struggling is an amazing example of inept management. Regarding last two bolded statements.  The second one explains the first.  (One of the things I learned with my business degree is that while marketing people are annoying, perhaps even evil, they are a necessary evil.)

StormyKnight wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Legislation like this should be voted on by the people, not the legislatures. Why?  Because it is the people that are affected by it the most.

agentwhale007 wrote: StormyKnight wrote: Legislation like this should be voted on by the people, not the legislatures. Why?

What I will take away from this thread:

oldsoldier wrote: The Hostess brand are now back out there renamed, Mrs Freshley's makes the Twinkie clone, and quite good.

Twinkies are back . . . Yay!

Both parties were in the wrong, but the Union Leadership expecting the Hostess people to 'fall' on thier sword in order to survive is what killed the whole deal. A company restructuring with union consetions would of been far better than 18,000 unemployed.

The Hostess brand are now back out there renamed, Mrs Freshley's makes the Twinkie clone, and quite good. So the overall exercise from both sides equated to what?

Labor Unions initially had a purpose in this country. The worker needed advocates for rights in the often uncontroled world of mass labor post industrial revolution. Unfortunately Labor Unions were targeted for control by Organized Crime organizations, and the course of the Labor Union changed. Now it was 'business' and the business was to make money for the Organized Crime 'family' and the Leaders of the major Unions. The Teamsters and the Jimmy Hoffa legacy is just one example.

Today Unions are still as 'business' run by individuals well tiered above the 'rank and file' they represent. Another group of 'rich' making thier living off the middle and poor classes they 'represent'.

When the worker is forced to pay a 'fee' to a Union for a 'right' to work, how is that considered 'choice'. The video and the stance of the unions to 'confront' those favoring the 'Right to Work' were there for one purpose, intimidation, hopefully escolating to violence, which it did. No surprise, as the methodology is straight from the 30's formation of unions, and how violence and intimidation was a tool well and often used.

My problem is the Democrats 'supporting' the Unions in this issue. The 'Right to Work' should be a free choice issue, not a coerced strongarmed method to aquire a 'fee' from the worker for the 'right' to work. You either 'pay' us the Union or you do not have the 'right' to work here. Choice appears to be quite selective in the Democrat/Union mindset as they feel they can pick and choose what 'rights' you have based on the agenda of the moment.

Ask the now unemployed Hostess Union workers how much they appreciate thier Union representation in thier talks to further bankrupt the company. The Union walked away from the workers after Hostess closed up, and the leadership of the union still gets paid.

There has to be a balance, you can not control consumer costs all the while having uncontroled labor costs that are far outpacing the ability of the company in question to maintain. As the price of Labor rises, and the ability for the business or government that HAS to use Union Labor, the cost of the product or service raises, to a point that it is no longer 'profitable' to continue producing the consumer item, or government service, so the business goes elsewhere, and government services and employees are cut (see Camden NJ, Detroit MI, etc)

Why to the foriegn car manufacturers avoid 'Union' states and prefer "Right to Work" states, the wages are not far differant, but the fear of the Union, engaged in escolating to unsustainable wage and benifits is removed. And the 'skilled' Union Labor arguement is totally idiotic, like it takes being a Union member to teach and excell at job skills.

I don't have a problem with the law, only the way it was implemented.  Legislation like this should be voted on by the people, not the legislatures.  I've been in several unions over the years and I'm currently a 'forced' member of the SEIU.  I do benefit from their efforts with higher pay and better benefits.  But now, I face the fact that my pay may be cut and/or my working hours may be changed.  My medical benefits have changed as I have to pay more for them.  What I pay for medical insurance for myself and my family has gone up 300% as of last October.  If the government can get away with RTW, what else can they get away with?  I fear privatization is next.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Someone looked in the mirror and said my name three times...

stratoaxe wrote: I think that some unions exist simply to push wages and benefits above and beyond market standards which is damaging to the overall system.