OT, Twinkies Revisited

Page 2 of 5  
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzz wrote:

It seems to me I read that there was a patent at one point on the upside down continuous cooking process (the base of the twinkie is actually on top when it's baked), but I did a quick search and didn't find anything. If there was, it definitely would have expired by now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Could easily be. There may even be patents covering the current process but they're certainly not necessary to make a Twinkie, since they've been made since the great flood (and those are still on the shelf - in original condition).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Patents, if they ever existed would cover the design and process for how a Twinkie is made. The name and appearance is covered by trademark. The recipe would be a trade secret.
The name and recipe will be sold off as assets. As the recipe has been around for years and is easily recreated, they won't be worth a lot. The brand will be worth a little more, but that value is derived from sales which have been dropping for some time.
There are companies that specialize in reviving dead brands with massive advertising (think Ovaltine), so it's possible Twinkies will return in one form or another. Probably like certain brands of bread - the recipie and sales rights will be licensed to a regional baker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's called a Trademark aka brand name. And it will be sold/liquidated as will all other assets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fascinating part to my mind is how to do exit the first bankruptcy with MORE debt than you entered bankruptcy with?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:32:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas

I'm just waiting for a report blaming this on the President or global warming :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/17/2012 6:10 PM, Doug wrote:

You mean it's not Bush's fault? ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:53:24 -0600, The Daring Dufas

Right. Maybe they can somehow make it a combined Bush, Obama and global warming cause. That would be a neat trick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/17/2012 8:21 PM, Doug wrote:

The unions are big supporters of Obama and Democrat policies in general. Perhaps the victory of their preferred candidate for President has emboldened them into throwing their weight around? I think the union really miscalculated on this one and I think we may see many more companies close their doors and liquidate for the same reason. The company shuts down, the union workers are unemployed but the union bosses still have their high paying cushy jobs. It never surprises me the that the P.L.L.C.F. types howl that the owners and management actually wanted to close down. O_o
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There may very well be examples of what you posit. Hostess isn't. The company has gone through several bankruptcies, after each of which the management/owner team (read vulture capitalists in the worst sense) increased their take. The unions in this case have been giving back more and more, but this union stood their ground. US labor relations example. What is probably the best part is that consumers have been more and more rejecting the merchandise the company sold, for many reasons, including self service gas stations' acceptance of credit cards at the pump.
The upshot is that the workers lost their jobs, while the "investors/job creators" and their lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Just my liberal opinion ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If survival of the company means taking a cut, better to have a smaller check than none at all. In this case though, the CEO and friends were taking more for themselves while giving out less to the workers. There is no possible good outcome with that type of scenario.
Better probably would have been to downsize to the required output level needed for the marketplace today and take a fair salary, not suck out the cash.
It may be legal, but it is morally reprehensible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As if they just came a long and started "taking". I have not looked at all the details, but I bet as is usually the case, long before those "vulture capitalists" starting "taking" they spent a hundred million bucks or so of their money buying the company, adding capital investment to it, etc., trying to make it successful.
Then some people think because some executives got paid a couple million for a few years after buying the company, that's how venture capitalists make money. Put in lots of money, get a little back. If that were the case, they would all be broke.

And look where it got them. They decided that being able to collect unemployment for a couple years, food stamps, free healthcare coming, was a better deal than working. Apparently even the Teamsters thought they were nuts, but then this is the new leftist order in the USA.


I would love to see how the investors are all laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone have any data that shows what they put in, versus what they are getting back? Just because they bought a company, which was having financial difficulty and it did not work out, how does that translate into the investors making money?

The question here is how that CEO and other executives were being compensated compared to similar executives at other companies. You have a company in trouble. You need some of the best to turn it around. You're not going to do that by offering them less than what they can get at other companies. You would actually likely have to offer them MORE, because it's a riskier proposition. Why would I come work for a shakey company, where I could get tarnished with the failure, when I can have a good job at a successful company?

Assuming the union would allow such downsizing. More likely the company is overloaded with donut hole counters who refuse to make reasonable workplace changes to increase productivity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2012 8:56 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

And if someone truly believed in themselves they would take on a challenge. Pay me a modest salary now and give me a big stake in the action. If I make it work then I make out and so do many others. Sets a great example too.
The hostess executives were just being a bunch of pigs plain and simple. As Ed said that was part of the recipe for failure.

And since the executives were a bunch of greedy pigs on a sinking ship how do you propose to use that in negotiations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Lee Iacocca worked for $1 a year. Sure, he still had his expense account and other benefits, but is sure made it more palatable for the workers and investors to pitch in and help. Image is very important.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/18/2012 9:50 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Exactly, that is one incredible bargaining chip to be used in negotiations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure they would. I have a challenge for you. Paint my house now for half of what similar services are going for. A few years from now, IF it turns out I can sell the house for a tidy profit, I'll give you some of the money.
The simple fact is that CEOs of these companies are already well paid, complete with stock options. You're not going to get the top talent, without offering an even better deal.
The "take a challenge, prove yourself, work for less" is the cheapskates lure to the suckers....

And how about if you can't make it work because the union is getting paid way too much? That their pay scale is out of line with those in similar jobs who are not union? Look at GM for example. Their labor costs were twice those of the non-union competitors.

Yes, maybe so. But until you have actual data that compares their compensation to that of similar executives, you're just blowing smoke. And again, the venture capital company did not just come by one day and take over the company for free. You think you actually make money by investing a huge amount in a failing company, then pay some of it out in salaries to executives? What business model is that?

I say until you have proof that those executives were over compensated compared to other similar executives in other companies, you're just blowing smoke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The rumor I read is that their salaries went up 3-fold as they were taking the company into bankruptcy again. Or something like that. If that is right, then why should the workers relinquish their contractual pay and benefits?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't to keep their job instead of winding up unemployed in this economy good enough? It used to be, but now we're in a new liberal world order, headed towards Greece and Spain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Sorry for getting this all mangled up. Just remember that I am not in favor of well-paid union bosses or ever-fatter union workers. However, the Hostess story is one of real vulture capitalism, not one of venture capitalists trying to reorganize and save a company. You don't have to believe every wird here, but go check the real data for yourself http://preview.tinyurl.com/ajvs6ye <http://www.politicususa.com/romney-vulture-capitalist-style-management - killed-hostess-unions.html> This is another story with some salary numbers. Pls ignore the typos ... http://preview.tinyurl.com/cbh97ot <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/18/1162786/-Inside-the-Hostess - Bankery>
This, though, is just funny: http://preview.tinyurl.com/c4ouez7 <https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/262034_385802358165399_ 1120865603_n.jpg>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zombieianbrooks/gingerbread-crackhouse-1ldk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.