Buh-bye twinkies

[Gnoman]

Also, the figures given in the bakery worker's account don't jive with figures given for, say, what the Teamster's union agreed to.

For years, the company has used the "state of emergency" to nullify large portions of the contract. When my father quit, he had worked 7 12-hour weeks for six straight months, which is forbidden under the contract.

[Anarion]

The New York Times suggested in its print version today that part of the problem is that the bakers' union believes that taking a pay cut would set an industry-wide precedent and therefore refuses to settle. This would mean that the bakers' union is selling out ~6,000 of its own employees for the greater good, which I find troubling, but believable.

[Scowling Dragon]

Meh. When I tried my first and only twinkie I almost gagged.

Those things taste like a truckfull of chemicals right into your mouth (And doesn't disguise its flavor as anything else) that sticks to your tongue.

[Chen]

The New York Times suggested in its print version today that part of the problem is that the bakers' union believes that taking a pay cut would set an industry-wide precedent and therefore refuses to settle. This would mean that the bakers' union is selling out ~6,000 of its own employees for the greater good, which I find troubling, but believable.

Certainly seems like a pretty big conflict of interest since the baker's union supports other companies that compete with Hostess. Screw some of your members so that the rest of your members (at other companies) keep doing well.

[Aliquid]

For those who like these horrible things.... they will still be making them in Canada.

[Traab]

Certainly seems like a pretty big conflict of interest since the baker's union supports other companies that compete with Hostess. Screw some of your members so that the rest of your members (at other companies) keep doing well.

No conflict at all. The union cares about the union, not the members. Its all about keeping as many members as they can, making as much profit as they can. If they have to sacrifice a largish chunk of its members to keep the majority sitting high on the hog, they will do so if it means more money for those who run the union. Its just the way it works. I wont say there arent any decent unions out there that honestly care about keeping the man from stepping on their members necks, but the majority I have dealt with, either directly, or learned about through friends, they dont care about right or wrong, they care about pulling in their dues and making sure nothing effects their bottom line in a bad way. Sure in most cases its a good thing for the union member, but just like signing up for the military, they arent doing good things for you like signing bonuses because they care about you, so dont expect that to continue if they can get a better deal by screwing you over.

[pendell]

Traab's remark sounds like a case of Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy . Put simply, any agency, company, or organization of any kind , whatever it's intentions, eventually loses sight of that goal. The bureaucracy ceases to be a means to an end and becomes the end in itself. The resources of the agency become devoted to committee meetings and pie charts and feathering nests, while the actual tip of the spear gets shortchanged more and more.

This is because the idealistic people who care about the mission tend to be very absorbed in the mission and care little about administration, while the people who do seize control tend to be the sort for whom any organization is simply a means to an end, allowing them to express their inner PHB .


Case in point

Mr. Incredible is of the first sort -- he believes his job really is to help people. The founders of the company might have agreed with him. But his boss is of the second sort -- he cares only about the organization and the profits for the shareholders. Plus, it gives him the ability to run his own little fiefdom and treat other people like dirt.

It's because people like him take over every organization that those of us who DO care are constantly having to end run around bureaucracy. Because people like that cause the system to seize up, making it useless.

Throwing money at it doesn't solve the problem. Why? 'Cause people like Mr. Huph (the boss in the clip) are the ones who get to allocate where the money goes. Naturally they use it to feather their own nests and expand their petty empires.

Which is why, in so many organizations, they just get more and more useless the more money you throw at them. Because all that money just goes into fat.

It's because people like him run things that outlaws show up as heros as early as 1377.

More constructively, it's also why people run out of their cubes and start their own businesses -- because they want to live their life by their rules, not wile away their time in process meetings doing nothing useful. It's the impetus that causes people to do new things. Meanwhile, creative destruction takes care of old dinosaurs that succumb to the Iron Law.

That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway. It certainly looks like Hostess is getting a dose of the ol' creative destruction. I wonder if the same will happen to the union at some point?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anarion]

That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway. It certainly looks like Hostess is getting a dose of the ol' creative destruction. I wonder if the same will happen to the union at some point?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

One interesting thing in the case of modern companies like Hostess, is that the whole profit-maximizing setup is actually enshrined in law. A company can give some of its profits to charity or for other community purposes, but only about 1% usually. If the company is not using the other 99% of its money to obtain maximum possible profits for the shareholders, the shareholders can gain the right to sue the company and force it to pay them off and buy out their stock.

It's also very difficult to reform because every time anyone has tried to form a company with a charter that provides other priorities than the shareholders, stock purchasers tend (unsurprisingly) to avoid buying any stock in the new company and it goes under.

[Trixie]

On the flip side, there are companies dealing in another cutthroat margins business, retail, that hire a lot of people, give them good training (so that customer visiting the store always has someone competent to ask, unlike 'empty superstore with automatic registers' model) and good pay. Surprise, surprise, they are more profitable than competition and both crew and customers are a lot happier. You only need to not make management bonuses #1 goal...

[pendell]

One interesting thing in the case of modern companies like Hostess, is that the whole profit-maximizing setup is actually enshrined in law. A company can give some of its profits to charity or for other community purposes, but only about 1% usually. If the company is not using the other 99% of its money to obtain maximum possible profits for the shareholders, the shareholders can gain the right to sue the company and force it to pay them off and buy out their stock.

It's also very difficult to reform because every time anyone has tried to form a company with a charter that provides other priorities than the shareholders, stock purchasers tend (unsurprisingly) to avoid buying any stock in the new company and it goes under.

What about not-for-profit corporations like, say, Mitre or the World Wildlife Federation? Isn't there provision in the tax code for corporations which don't intend to make a profit?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anarion]

On the flip side, there are companies dealing in another cutthroat margins business, retail, that hire a lot of people, give them good training (so that customer visiting the store always has someone competent to ask, unlike 'empty superstore with automatic registers' model) and good pay. Surprise, surprise, they are more profitable than competition and both crew and customers are a lot happier. You only need to not make management bonuses #1 goal...

I don't know how to respond to this. It's breathtakingly cynical, but probably has a grain of truth to it. I think you should go found a company and let us know the results.

What about not-for-profit corporations like, say, Mitre or the World Wildlife Federation? Isn't there provision in the tax code for corporations which don't intend to make a profit?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

These exist, of course. They generally don't sell their stock to the public, however, and they're generally organized for some kind of humanitarian purpose. I don't really know the details here, but founding a non-profit is something you do because you have a mission and you're willing to suffer for it, not because you want to live a comfortable life.

[pendell]

I don't know how to respond to this. It's breathtakingly cynical, but probably has a grain of truth to it. I think you should go found a company and let us know the results.



These exist, of course. They generally don't sell their stock to the public, however, and they're generally organized for some kind of humanitarian purpose. I don't really know the details here, but founding a non-profit is something you do because you have a mission and you're willing to suffer for it, not because you want to live a comfortable life.

*Cough* Consider the United Way, which paid it's executives better than $1 million/year apiece before they were caught.

They are by no means the only charity that does that.

I contend that charities are not typically founded by people who want to live a comfortable life. But per the iron law they frequently get taken over and exploited for that purpose by people of the second type.

Cynically, the difference between a for-profit shop and a non-profit shop is that in the first shareholders and bureaucrats make money while exploiting employees and customers. In the second case, there are no shareholders. So only the bureaucrats who take over carve off personal fiefdoms and multi-million dollar salaries and lifestyles and private jets . It can all keep running smoothly so long as the donations keep rolling in from clueless saps whenever they put some picture of a starving child in Africa on the TV.

ETA: My solution -- probably not a good one -- would be to dissolve any corporation I founded after 10 years, then start again with a new one with brand new staff, the better to get rid of the dead weight.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[willpell]

I don't know if I've ever eaten a Twinkie, but I'm fairly confident I've never wanted to. However I was once fond of their donuts, and even this past year I enjoyed the occasional fruit pie (Cherry was my favorite, Strawberry was a semi-rare treat, Apple was tolerable, and Dutch Apple with Raisins was the holy grail that I only saw once or twice but dreamed about for years afterward). It always saddens me when a product I care about is not cared about by the people that "own" the right to make it, and can thus prohibit other people from cleaning up after their mistakes to ensure the product stays on the market. What will be the next treasure that is lost to our society because of the greed and foolishness of a few petty, short-sighted men, I wonder?

[oblivion6]

What will be the next treasure that is lost to our society because of the greed and foolishness of a few petty, short-sighted men, I wonder?

Someone I know actually pondered what the world would be like if Pepsi or Coke went down...I proclaim that he needs to be imprisoned for such treasonous thoughts.

[Trixie]

I don't know how to respond to this. It's breathtakingly cynical, but probably has a grain of truth to it. I think you should go found a company and let us know the results.

Cynical?

I'd say after Enron and what followed, especially 2008, it's sad reality. Can you list even one example when top layer and its options, bonuses, shares, stock, etc. weren't last on the list of things to cut, especially in badly performing companies?

Anyway, article lists 7 companies than are successful following this model, and here you can read whole paper on how blind cutting costs and low wages are harmful to the whole national economy, companies, and workers alike. Warning - long.

[pendell]

Someone I know actually pondered what the world would be like if Pepsi or Coke went down...I proclaim that he needs to be imprisoned for such treasonous thoughts.

Certainly sounds like its above his clearance level. Tell him Friend Computer wants a word with him .

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

Meh. When I tried my first and only twinkie I almost gagged.

Those things taste like a truckfull of chemicals right into your mouth (And doesn't disguise its flavor as anything else) that sticks to your tongue.

I have good/bad news for you then. The brand name of "twinkies" is almost certainly worth a fair bit, and will surely be sold in bankruptcy. Someone else will pick it up, and be making Twinkies soon enough. Shouldn't actually be a big deal for their popular lines...it's the lesser known stuff that's more likely to be canceled.

That said, not a huge twinkies fan myself.

It is possible that part of the blame rests with the union. That said, Hostess has gone through CEOs remarkably rapidly of late, and the current fellow has a history that, well...let's just say he swaps firms often, and all the previous ones went bankrupt. Also, they've built up rather a pile of debt. And of course, while it's financially doable, it's bad bargaining tactics to give management a raise while demanding everyone else take a cut. I think it's extremely likely that management has also been very problematic.

[oblivion6]

...it's the lesser known stuff that's more likely to be canceled.

Chocadile's better not be canceled...Those are not very common these days, but they are one of the best Hostess treats...