In article
,
jon_banquer wrote:

On Nov 23, 4:37*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Ignoramus1661 wrote:

On 2012-11-23, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...
A good article by someone who's had his annual salary drop from
$43k/year
to $34k/year and Hostess wants him to go down to $25k/year:

So instead he gets 0 a year. *Can you say "Pyrrhic Victory"?

The people who worked for Hostess, like drivers or bakers, should have
no problem finding another job. There is a huge demand for drivers
and, I assume, steady demand for bakers.

* *Really? *When they stated that the entire industry has excess
production capacity? *Why would they need that more workers?

* *The other companies wouldn't need as may drives anyway. *One union
forced Hostess to use separate drives & vehicles for different
products. *Baked goods & snacks went from the bakery to the same stores
with two sets of trucks & drivers. *That's one of the things that shut
the company down.

Wrong again, Terrell. What killed Hostess was lack of innovation. See
the links I posted stating as much. A large and ever growing number of
people don't want to eat chemical based junk food like Twinkie's.
Imagine if Hostess management had a ****ing clue and they had offered
a healthy more expensive Twinkie. For sure I would have tried it. Tell
us why Hostess refused to innovate, Terrell. Tell us how lack of
innovation is the union's fault.

You truly are a ****ing moron.

What's innovation got to do with it?

Hostess was selling 300 million twinkies a year and making billions of
dollars a year overall, and had been for years. That's plenty to
support a company ... if they are able to keep costs under control.

Nor do twinkie buyers *want* innovation. The product cannot change from
what people recall from childhood. Remember New Coke?

Joe Gwinn