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.
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).
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.
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
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 ...
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
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.
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
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
On 11/18/2012 8:56 AM, email@example.com 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?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
This is another story with some salary numbers. Pls ignore the typos ...
This, though, is just funny:
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.