Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Buzz, Nov 16, 2012.
We can buy both of those in the US.
How about Ketchup chips? I keep hearing they're not available, but maybe that's a specific brand? It's surprising to me that ANYTHING available in Canada wouldn't be in the US. Generally it's vice versa.
The Lay's brand isn't available in stores here but you can get in online. There are some regional brands that offer ketchup chips but they're not widely available. Just doesn't seem to be a popular flavor here.
One Canadian food product that I can't get here is the Epicure brand of dip mix. : I think it's mostly a home sales business and I just haven't gotten around to finding a seller that will ship to me. My sister's in Canada a lot but can I trust her to buy it for me? In a word - no.
Never heard of it, but then I'm not on the home party circuit. Here's the website - doesn't look like they do simple mail order - https://www.epicureselections.com/en/
Judging by the product selection though, I highly recommend having a look at The Spice House. I order from the all the time, despite the high shipping cost, which you wouldn't be subjected to, plus they regularly do free shipping events in the US if you follow them on FB or sign up for the e-newsletter. They have a bunch of dip mixes (we love the Chip Dip Seasoning) as well as many other well known and housemade blends, and the finest jarred spices and herbs I've ever found.
I was sent a couple of packets once and they were wonderful. I've called them and they have no intention of expanding to the US and seemed a bit offended that I even asked. Thanks for the other link. I'll check it out.
It might just be my foreign eyes, but ding dongs just sound dirty
You just go ding that dong *Jen*!
Isn't it actually King Dons? Or am I confused? (Yes, I googled and am still confused )
I haven't had a Hostess product in at least 35 years so I won't start now. But probably someone will buy the recipes? Lance or Little Debbie or someone like that.
I have no doubt those snacks will continue.
Hostess to go into mediation.
Here's hoping the mediation involves the executives agreeing to take the same sort of pay cuts they want the workers to take, if the company's payroll is really such a huge threat to its survival.
Wow, what a fluke that now the business might not go bankrupt and instead has gotten tons of publicity and business. Weird how that happens, huh? All you gotta do is threaten the livelihood of 18,000 working people and voila!....big upswing to the business. Good move, executives, you're earning every penny of your three million a year wage.
Ding Dongs in some areas, King Dons in others. I think my dad still owes me and my sisters a box of Ding Dongs after he snarfled through a whole box intended for us. Back in like 1976 or something.
Well, if this submission to Cute Overload is anything to go by, Corgi's love Twinkies.
"Hostess, union mediation fails; Twinkies return to chopping block":
This was re-published in salon.com today and sheds a little light on why at least some of the workers were willing to strike and defy the Teamsters:
Vulture Capitalism, Not Unions, Killed Twinkies
Snopes article about the executive bonuses. Worth the read.
Huff Po article about the Teamster's view of the strike.
I'd like to ask those of you coming down hard on the side of the baker's union - if they are so completely in the right, then why did Teamsters take the deal? If you were them, what would you have wanted in this situation? To negotiate or to lose your job? Do you feel that the bakers standing their ground were justified even if their actrions did directly lead to the loss of 18,000 jobs? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'd really like to try to understand your mindset because to me, it certainly doesn't seem like their (the bakers) actions were at all logical.
What was the deal for the Teamsters? What kinds of concessions did they make? How many of them are there, and how much do they make now? I haven't seen anything written about that.
Also, Pavelko asks why assume that the company will be as badly managed going forward as it has been in the past. I don't know--maybe it's because the same people who've screwed up are in charge, and they've asked the bankruptcy court for millions in additional compensation to manage through the bankruptcy.
I have no doubt the books are bad: the company's been gutted. I haven't seen an argument by the bakers' union that it hasn't been. The bakers are arguing that any further concessions will line the pockets of management and investors, and they lose their pensions in any case.
According to the Snopes article, the CEO is now different, and the other execs are working for $1 or their old salaries so I'm not sure where the millions in additional compensation idea is coming from. (There's a whole lot of articles I haven't read, so maybe it's just not addressed in the Snopes piece.) As for changing management practices, I'm thinking of the example of Chrysler. When Cerberus bought them out, you could tell that was a failure waiting to happen - and it did. However, after their bankruptcy and subsequent change in management, they are doing pretty well. That's just one example of a successful change in corporate culture coming out of bankruptcy - I'm sure there are a lot more out there (although I'm sure there's plenty of failures too). That success story - as well as Ford and GM - was heavily dependent, though, on cooperation from their unions. If they hadn't made some serious changes in their own (union) culture, I think things would have been much different.
Yes. And there does come a time when people (workers) just have to stand up. My heart aches for those that will lose their jobs but it looks like they've been left out to dry by greedy corporate owners not by union stubbornness.
According to Hostess,
if you do the math on the chart below, you can see the millions.
The other excecutives are working for $1 for two months max, and if you look at the list, most of the top executives at the company are the same. Executive compensation, even at the old levels, isn't something the company could sustain. I would not argue that no one deserves merit if a company is failing, as they could be doing great work to keep it from failing worse, but if there's no money to sustain a company, there should be no money for merit raises. Management was responsible for the company's performance, Management failed, and the same Management, apart from a CEO, is asking its workers to pay again for its poor decisions.
Some of the bakers at least, have done the math and have decided it doesn't add up. It's really their call.
Silver Point Capital, which appears to have the largest stake in Hostess and is the entity negotiating with the union, is an investment company run by former Goldman Sachs executives, no? This is Bloomberg's description:
Certainly doesn't sound like they are interested in running a baking business. For investment firms, it's not about building companies over the long term and enjoying the profits; it's about fast return on investment for their investors and principles. The way to do that is generally to sell the company as a whole, or in parts. Therefore, the executives who the workers accuse of doing a bad job might actually be doing exactly what they are paid to do - prepare it for sale, which means making it an attractive investment for someone else. Assets may include physical plants, technology, distribution networks and workforce, but it sounds like in this case the workforce is proving to be a liability. The biggest asset might have originally been the heritage brands themselves, and given that in the past 8 years (since the last bankruptcy/restructuring), consumers have moved further away from snack foods, those brand names are likely losing value too. I wonder if they even have global rights - one key brand, Wonder Bread is manufactured in Canada by a company that owns its outright, so Hostess gets nothing from licensing.
The history of the food industry is filled with mergers and acquisitions and takeovers and brand shuffles. I think this one is only getting this level of attention because a) it comes at a time when many Americans are out of work and job prospects are not good and b) because the brands involved are well known and newsworthy, as opposed to some brand of canned vegetables or an obscure auto part or the like.
I see your point, but I guess I come from a bit of a different mindset than the bakers. Ideals don't put bread on the table, (pun intended), ya know?
I would think they were having a hard time putting bread on the table with their increasingly shrinking salaries. It's not so much an ideal to me, as just having had enough of being devalued time and time again.
And at least one person thinks that he can get another job for the same amount of money he'd be making in five years time.
Following what Jenny said about the major holder in Hostess, and what their likely aims are, why should the workers help a hedge fund make the company more attractive by cutting their wages, benefits, and pension? So that they can be screwed the same way in another few years time? Let the hedge fund try to regain its investment with a dying brand and the remnants of a company, if a person can get another job for the same.
I wonder if the union was negotiating the wrong terms - trying to keep the company alive by agreeing to paycuts rather than working on ensuring employees could keep their jobs when plants changed hands. Also, somewhere I read that one of the paycuts in past years was in exchange for equity in the company, which could mean that if the company is sold, then the employees get a piece of that - the union and the employees should have worked to protect that (I don't know if they did, but there doesn't seem to be much discussion of it). In one interview, the CEO said that the company was also hampered operationally by a lot of old contracts from previous mergers - things like cakes and bread having to be transported on different trucks by different drivers or something - I wonder how much of that was on the bargaining table?
Sounds like the employees, management, union and investors were never on the same page.
It makes sense to take a salary cut for a lesser-paying job, but it doesn't make much sense to take a pay cut for your current position. If you want to continue working in the same industry, you'll be forever known as someone willing to work for pennies. It doesn't help you in the long run. Like Andora said, it devalues you.
How? I doubt these folks were thinking "how do I make myself look better to a prospective new employer? I know! I'll vote against the new contract!" If anything, being part of a union like this would probably make a prospective new employer less likely to hire that worker if there's a choice between him and someone equally qualified who wasn't part of that union. At least that's the way I'd look at it - it's a tough job market out there, and being associated with a company-killing union (whether or not the label is justified) is a negative in my book.