>>>>After 82 years the maker of Twinkies, Ding Dongs and other yummy treats is done.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/NATL-Twinkies-Maker-Hostess-Going-Out-of-Business-179643161.html
>>>>
>>>>SET PREDICTIBLE RESPONSES ON ;)
>>>
>>>I imagine my raised eyebrow at management's enlightened form of labor negotiation is predictable ;-)
>>
>>Not a big fan of fat unions myself, but from what I can read from the article, major spat erupted over company decision to reduce
>>benefits/salaries/pension payment by 2%. What I do not understand (without knowing background stories) why would management do that (overall reduction ) and affect ALL employees forever, when they could have simply (maybe not that simple but probably doable) reduce 2-3% of workforce and achieve more or less the same goal, but in much more palatable way.
>>
>>Cutting 2-3% of workforce is possible in almost any organization no matter how well they are organized, whereas from employee standpoint NOBODY should accept reduction of pay/benefits ever. Who would complain if they decided to cut off all those bad apples
>>and lazy a**es for instance, that as we all know exist in every company ? (In about just that % if not more)
>>
>>Instead they brought (both sides I guess) things to the brink, and finally down into abyss all together.
>>Loss/Loss, both for company share-holders AND those good long term workers who usually make business to what it really is.
>>
>>What I find symptomatic is amount of vitriol that gets directed towards Unions and any form of employee revolt/resistance.
>>As if majority of Americans are all little Warren Buffet's all exasperated about future of free capitalism, rather then realizing that they
>>might be very next neck in the line for salary/benefit/job cuts. (Especially once all resistance/obstacles like unions/labor protection laws are gone)
>>
>>The way the things are today (1% has almost all the wealth) at least 60-70% of Americans should be leaning left
>>(as last line of defense!) whereas you have completely surreal numbers of people who actually admire rich and clap/cheer over
>>every labor/union defeat. It is almost weird.
>
>I will not defend the excesses of unions, like featherbedding (required jobs that do not require actual work). But we should remember that they came about for a reason. They were a response to ruthless exploitation of workers by ownership. The status quo was you'll be damned grateful you have a job and you'll take whatever terms we dictate. Anyone who even talked about organizing a union was beaten or worse by hired thugs. My ex father in law tried to organize a union at Sears in Springfield and was literally driven out of Springfield. This smart, compassionate man, a man with a master's degree, not a bomb thrower at all, could no longer find work in Springfield and moved his rapidly growing family to Chicago. For which I am grateful.
>
>My own father had quite a variety of experiences with unions. He did not like them and kept them out in two Maine companies. He had three significant jobs in his lifetime. At the second one he was a top exec at a trucking company and kept a union out at the insistence of the owner. Even then, though, he stood up for the workers. When he found out the women in the office were sneaking into the bathroom to smoke cigarettes he instituted two breaks a day. The owner didn't like it but he accepted it. From there my father went to a very large and well respected company in the Portland area, specifically to combat a union movement for the truck drivers and warehouse workers. They almost got in, losing by only a couple of votes. That was the only time I ever saw him scared about anything. He said if the union gets in I'm going to be fired.
>
>When the second union dispute was going on he went to Washington to testify before Congress as a representative of the American Trucking Association. The night before his testimony, like a scene in a Scorsese movie, two thugs came to his hotel room and suggested he catch the next plane back to Maine. He said no thanks and shut the door on them. I bet his heart was going pitter patter.
>
>At his wake in early May two of the people I talked to longest were two men who reported to him at his last job. One was the leader of the warehouse workers who sat across him during the union negotiations. He said obviously we were on opposite sides of the table but we spoke to each other with respect. If he didn't agree, or couldn't agree, he would say so and explain why. He didn't treat us like enemies. The other guy was one of the truck drivers. More than just one of them; he has won the Maine truck rodeo several times. That is a precision truck driving competition. He also won the national competition once and apologized that he was going to miss the funeral on Sunday because he would be competing at another one. He opened his coat jacket and showed me the belt buckle he won the first time, a buckle befitting a boxing champion. "I don't wear this very often," he said. He said when he got here we didn't even have uniforms. We drove rented trucks with Hertz on the side instead of the name of our company. We looked like hillbillies.
>
>When he died I was warned I would miss him more than I thought. I thought I was going to be just fine with it. He lived a good long life, almost 80, and underwent just a few bad days at the end. He had three bad days and was under morphine. He was properly memorialized.
>
>I just find myself missing him at odd times. We talked on the phone a lot and it has been a slow adjustment there. On a number of occasions I have wanted to call him up about something in the passing scene, usually politics or sports. And it has been like a punch in the gut to realize I can't.
>
>If you have a living parent, call them today. Call them and tell them how much you love them and appreciate them.

I saw on the news that a Mexican company is thinking of continuing twinkie production.