• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hostess: I Shall Squeeze a Twinkie on the Ground For You

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sourceninja said:
And that ended up leaving them with a captain and no sailors. Seems like their play was a failure after all.
Click to expand...

No it didn't. Most of the sailors wanted to stay. A small group got greedy and when they didn't get what they wanted, they sunk the ship and took everyone else down with them by abandoning their posts and making it impossible for the rest of the crew to steer the boat to safety.
 
preslove said:
Twinkies and just about everything else Hostess makes suck.
Click to expand...

emm when I was a kid I loved everything they made. I'm not even close to being a health freak, but for some reason now all of their stuff doesn't taste the same to me and I don't like their products.
 
Just saw this on ebay
twinkies.jpg
 
crownjules said:
So the bakers have to take a paycut while the top execs get 50% or more raises?
Click to expand...

Not a very good exaple for your employess while asking them to take a pay cut lol.

Wonder how much they could of cut down on the pay cut for the 4000 bakers if the top execs didn't take a pay raise in fact you could of cut all thier wagess to. Maybe save the company and 18 thousand jobs? Would of been the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
No big loss, pretty much everything they make is disgusting since they seemingly no longer sell chips up here. I used to love Hostess brand chips and The Munchies were awesome.

KT
 
Thebobo said:
Greed sucks. :'( I means sheesh do you need 2+ million dollars a year to live? Wonder how much they could of cut down on the pay cut if the top execs didn't take a pay raise. Might of been enough, I suck at math but maybe save the company and 18 thousand jobs? That would of een th right thing to do.
Click to expand...
So if the management pay was limited to, say, $100k, do you believe Hostess would still be in business today?
 
Thebobo said:
Greed sucks. :'( I means sheesh do you need 2+ million dollars a year to live? Wonder how much they could of cut down on the pay cut if the top execs didn't take a pay raise. Might of been enough, I suck at math but maybe save the company and 18 thousand jobs? That would of een th right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I agree with how much money do you need to live on, but it's an open market here. Those execs could have got a job somewhere else for the same pay.

Not to belittle anyone, but most bakers, delivery people, Walmart workers, etc don't posses the desire or skill set to do what a CEO does and since laborers out number CEOs they kind of get to pick their pay level.
 
paperfist said:
I agree with how much money do you need to live on, but it's an open market here. Those execs could have got a job somewhere else for the same pay.

Not to belittle anyone, but most bakers, delivery people, Walmart workers, etc don't posses the desire or skill set to do what a CEO does and since laborers out number CEOs they kind of get to pick their pay level.
Click to expand...

Aye, sad but true. The workers are all replacement level or lower, the executives are generally not.

KT
 
blaming the strikers....Didn't hostess file for Bankruptcy 2-3 years ago? Wasn't the news of their demise reported several times already?

They were in shit-sandwich long before. The strike, I'd imagine, is a response to austerity that they probably underwent to stay afloat.
 
TechBoyJK said:
The increase in management pay, when you look at the costs of employing 18000 people, was just a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...
That's the same excuse every executive in the world uses to justify his pay increase. "But I'm just one person!"

Lead by example and the sheep will follow. It's a principle that people tend to forget as they move up the food chain.
 
There's a Wonder Bread bakery (Hostess) here in town (the shitty part of it) and they were part of the crowd that didn't take the deal.
It's been on the news for a few days, and it's hilarious when they interview the unskilled minimum wage laborers and they act like they each played a pivotal role in the "baking" process. Low class idiots who mosty likely believed it when a union rep told them "You're worth it! Hold out for what you deserve!"
Guess what? They aren't worth it, they are 100% replaceable, and they bit the hand that fed them better than they deserved.
 
TechBoyJK said:
The increase in management pay, when you look at the costs of employing 18000 people, was just a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but 1.8 mil raise (for the CEO alone), with advances made to them, is far too much for simply stepping in and 'I'm running this now!'.
Sure $100 per person may not seem like a lot, but you add it with all the other executive raises it ends up being a nice chunk of change when you are asking the rest of the employees to receive less.
 
KnightBreed said:
That's the same excuse every executive in the world uses to justify his pay increase. "But I'm just one person!"

Lead by example and the sheep will follow. It's a principle that people tend to forget as they move up the food chain.
Click to expand...

The "sheep" didn't follow yesterday. They didn't even do what the other affected unions advised them to do.
 
KnightBreed said:
That's the same excuse every executive in the world uses to justify his pay increase. "But I'm just one person!"

Lead by example and the sheep will follow. It's a principle that people tend to forget as they move up the food chain.
Click to expand...

Most valuable ceo's didn't spend years of their lives learning how to manage a large corporation to work for the same pay as their midlevel MBA's. A good CEO can make a company tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, so asking for 2-3M per year is totally reasonable. I can guarantee you if these managers didn't get these raises, there was no fucking way they were going to deal with Hostess's problems.

I bet they would have taken less pay from a successful company, just because the work would be different.
 
Last edited:
TechBoyJK said:
Most valuable ceo's didn't spend years of their lives learning how to manage a large corporation to work for the same pay as their midlevel MBA's. A good CEO can make a company tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, so asking for 2-3M per year is totally reasonable. I can guarantee you if these managers didn't get these raises, there was no fucking way they were going to deal with Hostess's problems.

I bet they would have taken less pay from a successful company, just because the work would be different.
Click to expand...

so basically, this class of person really has no passion or love for their work...no self-respect.


They are just there to do a job and be compensated as they feel they deserve?



I can see that with company's as old as Hostess, it really is no longer anyone's baby. Ownership is long long gone, so here you have an endless train of MBA automatons filling spots as they need to be replaced, re running the same numbers that they would run anywhere. I can see where the soul is gone, I get that. ...but shouldn't they at least love the work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top