Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: (OT) Death of Twinkies: A Union Contract Hit
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
ByTor
Nov 27, 2012, 8:09:26 AM11/27/12
to
In article <HL%ss.19827$_92....@newsfe24.iad>,
nos...@nobama.com.invalid says...
>
> <http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-con
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
The union and all its members should *buy* the company than turn around
and make demands on themselves......I'd love to see how that plays out.
nos...@nobama.com.invalid says...
>
> <http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-con
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
The union and all its members should *buy* the company than turn around
and make demands on themselves......I'd love to see how that plays out.
Message has been deleted
SMS
Nov 27, 2012, 11:40:22 AM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 1:31 AM, dbu wrote:
> <http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-con
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
One thing you can count on, if Fox said it, it's either totally
> <http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-con
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
incorrect or you're only hearing part of the story.
In fact, the demise of Hostess was set in motion long before this strike.
It goes like this:
1. A private equity company acquires ownership of a company and takes
out huge loans in the company's name to fund the purchase.
2. The company pays it's executives large salaries, bonuses, and
management fees.
3. They break any unions by layoffs, strikes, or forced concessions.
4. They take the company into bankruptcy, sell off the assets, and pay
themselves huge bonuses.
5. They blame the workers for not taking further cuts in pay and benefits.
Hostess had one asset, the value of its brand names. Producing,
delivering, and marketing products, as well as developing new products,
was a business that the private equity firm never wanted to be in. The
value of its brands was going down because of changing consumer
preferences, so they had to unload them.
It took two bankruptcies, violating contracts by ceasing the payment of
benefits into the pension fund.
Hostess finally got to do what they wanted to do all along, "focus on
selling its assets to the highest bidders.”
Message has been deleted
ByTor
Nov 27, 2012, 12:10:18 PM11/27/12
to
In article <50b4ecf4$0$29829$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
scharf...@geemail.com says...
> selling its assets to the highest bidders.?
While you are entitled to your *defense* of the issue, obviously
*unions*, you FAIL to make ONE very important point......
WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
what it wants?
Who the hell are UNIONS & generally DEMOCRATS think they are DEMANDING
anything of a privately owned company? This OWE ME mentality gets
stretched just a little to far if you ask me, and while MAYBE the union
isn't ALL to blame I'm QUITE CERTAIN that just their EXISTANCE & DEMANDS
bare a GREAT responsibility in the demise of this company.
Stop being a *partisan* defender 7 REALLY look at issues like this for
what they are, apply some *logic* once in awhile and there just may be
hope for you.
scharf...@geemail.com says...
While you are entitled to your *defense* of the issue, obviously
*unions*, you FAIL to make ONE very important point......
WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
what it wants?
Who the hell are UNIONS & generally DEMOCRATS think they are DEMANDING
anything of a privately owned company? This OWE ME mentality gets
stretched just a little to far if you ask me, and while MAYBE the union
isn't ALL to blame I'm QUITE CERTAIN that just their EXISTANCE & DEMANDS
bare a GREAT responsibility in the demise of this company.
Stop being a *partisan* defender 7 REALLY look at issues like this for
what they are, apply some *logic* once in awhile and there just may be
hope for you.
ByTor
Nov 27, 2012, 12:11:39 PM11/27/12
to
In article <k92qpn$br0$1...@news.albasani.net>, nobama@göv.com says...
> That's pretty much what's happened with GM, which is nearing bankruptcy
> once again. The difference is that Obama won't be bailing out Hostess,
> particularly if he wants Michelle to put-out. A big IF, but
> nonetheless. This is provided you assume that their girls weren't
> conceived in vitro.
>
> OTOH, GM will be getting more involuntary taxpayer largesse without a
> doubt. The first round had them use about half of the bailout money to
> fund UAW pensions. Of course this was a historic first, but the
> state-controlled media saw fit to conceal this from the O-Bots despite
> the unethical, if not illegal precedent. Not that they'd understand
> how he again hosed them, and us.
>
> <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-from-subsidizing-union-compensation>
> <http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/morning-bell-auto-bailout-was-really-just-a-uaw-bailout/>
Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
win elections.
> once again. The difference is that Obama won't be bailing out Hostess,
> particularly if he wants Michelle to put-out. A big IF, but
> nonetheless. This is provided you assume that their girls weren't
> conceived in vitro.
>
> OTOH, GM will be getting more involuntary taxpayer largesse without a
> doubt. The first round had them use about half of the bailout money to
> fund UAW pensions. Of course this was a historic first, but the
> state-controlled media saw fit to conceal this from the O-Bots despite
> the unethical, if not illegal precedent. Not that they'd understand
> how he again hosed them, and us.
>
> <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-from-subsidizing-union-compensation>
> <http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/13/morning-bell-auto-bailout-was-really-just-a-uaw-bailout/>
Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
win elections.
Message has been deleted
SMS
Nov 27, 2012, 1:32:10 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 9:10 AM, ByTor wrote:
> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
> what it wants?
Where did anyone ever say that they should not be allowed to do they
> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
> what it wants?
want (within the law of course).
Hostess did exactly what they wanted to do. They would have done it even
if the union had agreed to further cuts. They were already on their
second bankruptcy. There is nothing illegal about shutting down a
private business and selling off the assets.
The union probably could have delayed the liquidation for another six to
twelve months, but the bottom line was that the iconic Hostess brands
were the victim of changing consumer preferences and competition from
other similar products. Personally I don't know anyone who had bought
Twinkies, Ho-Hos, or Wonder Bread in years if not decades. The loss of
Colombo products is too bad though.
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 1:38:24 PM11/27/12
to
"ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
news:k92s5r$a75$1...@dont-email.me...
>WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be >ALLOWED to do
>what it wants?
For the reason of what just hapened to me and a few hundred other workers
>what it wants?
where I just retired from.
When I started working there 39 years ago I was promised a good eairly
retirement pension fund after working there for 30 years. Also some medical
benifits.
After 35 years of work the company was sold to another company and the
retirement was cut in half and no medical benifits. The ones that had been
there less than 10 years got about 3000 dollars buyout of their pension
fund.
That company stole from me about 6 years of my retirement life, and about $
1000 a month in what I should have been getting.
This was at one plant that had about 4000 workers over the years. There are
also several other plants just like it in the US that was owned by the same
company.
SMS
Nov 27, 2012, 2:25:39 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 10:10 AM, dbu wrote:
> steven, you continue to make stupid excuses in order for you to save
> face.
Very weak response. Of course you don't have anything intelligent to
say, so it's not surprising.
> steven, you continue to make stupid excuses in order for you to save
> face.
Very weak response. Of course you don't have anything intelligent to
say, so it's not surprising.
SMS
Nov 27, 2012, 2:34:21 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 10:38 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
> news:k92s5r$a75$1...@dont-email.me...
>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be >ALLOWED to do
>> what it wants?
>
> For the reason of what just hapened to me and a few hundred other workers
> where I just retired from.
>
> When I started working there 39 years ago I was promised a good eairly
> retirement pension fund after working there for 30 years. Also some medical
> benifits.
> After 35 years of work the company was sold to another company and the
> retirement was cut in half and no medical benifits. The ones that had been
> there less than 10 years got about 3000 dollars buyout of their pension
> fund.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would have protected your
> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
> news:k92s5r$a75$1...@dont-email.me...
>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be >ALLOWED to do
>> what it wants?
>
> For the reason of what just hapened to me and a few hundred other workers
> where I just retired from.
>
> When I started working there 39 years ago I was promised a good eairly
> retirement pension fund after working there for 30 years. Also some medical
> benifits.
> After 35 years of work the company was sold to another company and the
> retirement was cut in half and no medical benifits. The ones that had been
> there less than 10 years got about 3000 dollars buyout of their pension
> fund.
vested pension benefits. The medical benefits I'm not sure about. That
may be separate and not subject to protection.
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 3:15:01 PM11/27/12
to
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:50b515bc$0$29846$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would have protected your vested
> pension benefits. The medical benefits I'm not sure about. That may be
> separate and not subject to protection.
I think the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp would only protect you if the
> pension benefits. The medical benefits I'm not sure about. That may be
> separate and not subject to protection.
company goes out of business. Also from a show on TV I think you only get
about 2/3 of the origional benifit.
The company did not go out of business. They were bought by another comapny
and the rules of retirement changed.
The medical benefits are not subject to protection.
One other thing they did was about 7 ot 8 years ago was to give some workers
the option of retiring eairly with a incentiave of so much other money.
Some took the eairly retirement. About 3 months later the company cut off
the medical benefits. This ment the workers medical insurance went from
about $ 200 for a man and wife to about $ 1000 per month. This was almost $
10,000 per year that the retired workers had to come up with . The company
was sued and the retired workers got about half of that money back. They
were still out about $ 5000 per year for seveal years before medicare would
take over.
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 3:21:11 PM11/27/12
to
> On 11/27/2012 10:38 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
>> news:k92s5r$a75$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be >ALLOWED to
>>> do
>>> what it wants?
Also I would have been been off if the company had went out of business. I
>> "ByTor" <By...@snowdog.com> wrote in message
>> news:k92s5r$a75$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be >ALLOWED to
>>> do
>>> what it wants?
could have drawn enough money from unemployment, and 'food stamps' and an
Obamma phone to get by for a couple of years and then my social security
would have been more also.
The news says that a person that is living off the government would have to
make about $ 50,000 a year to live like the nonworking people. That is more
than the average wage in this part of the country.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 4:40:59 PM11/27/12
to
"dbu" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:HL%ss.19827$_92....@newsfe24.iad...
> <http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/11/19/death-twinkies-union-con
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
Hostess was toast (pun intended) union or no union. At most the union
> tract-hit/>
>
> 18500 jobs lost because one union couldn't compromise. Union
> "featherbedding".
action just moved up the inevitable but not by much.
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 4:44:40 PM11/27/12
to
You realize that liquidation was the target all along? I've watched it
happen with other companies including a similar operation (bakery) in the
Carolinas.
Managment and investors made out like bandits. Everyone else was screwed,
including the tax payers.
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 4:53:37 PM11/27/12
to
"dbu" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <50b4ecf4$0$29829$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> steven, you continue to make stupid excuses in order for you to save
> face.
I live just up the road from the Hostess HQ. The company has been a running
> steven, you continue to make stupid excuses in order for you to save
> face.
joke in the DFW community for years. They have been to the well so often
that the buckets is not only dry but it has many holes in it. The reality
is they pulled too hard on the rope once to often and it broke.
I've been an entrepreneur for near 50 years. I've watched this exact same
game played out too many times.
Message has been deleted
ByTor
Nov 27, 2012, 6:40:12 PM11/27/12
to
In article <WNadnb2FzOIClSjN...@earthlink.com>,
rmower...@earthlink.net says...
Were these a combination of company & union promised benefits? Or was
this *strictly* a privately owned company?
rmower...@earthlink.net says...
this *strictly* a privately owned company?
hachiroku
Nov 27, 2012, 5:40:16 PM11/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:13:45 -0600, dbu wrote:
> In article <k93cgf$ikn$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> That's probably true, however why were the teamsters willing to give it
> another chance?
>
> BTW, I am from a union family, Teamsters, my father a loyal member for
> many years.
Four out of five unions sided with the company, including the Teamster's
(unbelievable!). Only the Baker's Union would not agree, and faclilitated
the closure of the comapny. A Federal Judge even gave them another chance,
and they STILL killed the company.
--
Ronald Reagan didn't spend his whole first term blaming Jimmy Carter.
> In article <k93cgf$ikn$1...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net>
> another chance?
>
> BTW, I am from a union family, Teamsters, my father a loyal member for
> many years.
Four out of five unions sided with the company, including the Teamster's
(unbelievable!). Only the Baker's Union would not agree, and faclilitated
the closure of the comapny. A Federal Judge even gave them another chance,
and they STILL killed the company.
--
Ronald Reagan didn't spend his whole first term blaming Jimmy Carter.
hachiroku
Nov 27, 2012, 5:43:53 PM11/27/12
to
But the FACT is the Baker's Union was what shut the doors. NOW the owners
have free rein to sell the assets. Otherwise, they would have had to stay
in business. A Federal judge even tried to stop it by giving the Baker's
another chance to stop the sale of assets, and they STILL wouldn't
negotiate.
Perhaps they had an in with the owners and will get some of the profits
from the asset sale? Only reasonm I can see for VOTING YOURSELF OUT OF A
JOB.
If they aren't getting a slice of the pie, they're even dumber than I
already thought. Members of the other unions are PISSED!
hachiroku
Nov 27, 2012, 5:47:29 PM11/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:53:03 -0600, dbu wrote:
> In article <50b513b1$0$29863$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> steven, all you are is a mouthpiece for obama and his droids. You have
> a narrow mind set, only democrats are right in your mind and everybody
> should agree with them, that is what they, and you refer to as
> bi-partisan.
I was going to comment on this today.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what ANYONE wants to do, as long as
no one gives a flying fuck about what *I* want to do.
But, the Liberals get an idea in their head for how THEY think we should
live, and do whatever they can to LEGISLATE it into being, whether it's a
good idea or not. More often than not, it's NOT, but THEY want to say how
the rest of the country can live.
That's why they hate Catholics so much. But then they side with Muslims, a
lot of whom want them to practice the One True Religion. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
But then, most of what Liberals want doesn't.
> In article <50b513b1$0$29863$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> a narrow mind set, only democrats are right in your mind and everybody
> should agree with them, that is what they, and you refer to as
> bi-partisan.
I was going to comment on this today.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what ANYONE wants to do, as long as
no one gives a flying fuck about what *I* want to do.
But, the Liberals get an idea in their head for how THEY think we should
live, and do whatever they can to LEGISLATE it into being, whether it's a
good idea or not. More often than not, it's NOT, but THEY want to say how
the rest of the country can live.
That's why they hate Catholics so much. But then they side with Muslims, a
lot of whom want them to practice the One True Religion. It makes no sense
whatsoever.
But then, most of what Liberals want doesn't.
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 6:30:28 PM11/27/12
to
"dbu" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:KObts.19423$fF5....@newsfe01.iad...
> That's probably true, however why were the teamsters willing to give it
> another chance?
>
> BTW, I am from a union family, Teamsters, my father a loyal member for
> many years.
No idea much less direct knowledge on the Teamsters' thinking on the matter.
> another chance?
>
> BTW, I am from a union family, Teamsters, my father a loyal member for
> many years.
Regardless the word on the street for year here in DFW for the business
community is Hostess was toast.
Not generally known but some (the wiser folk) in the DFW business community
would only deal with the company on a cash basis.
On a personal level the quality of their products has gone down over the
years. At one time we were buying their sliced bread but found that it went
stale too quickly.
There comes a time in all relationships be they business or personal where
you cut the abuser off. BTDT never looked back.
Message has been deleted
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 7:03:27 PM11/27/12
to
news:k93j0u$kdd$1...@dont-email.me...
The company changed owners several times over the 39 years I worked there.
Each time it changed hands it actually got beter before the Koch Brothers
bought it, then everything went down hill. Then they sold it to another
group and it really got bad. The Koch Brothers kept the pension fund. The
ones that were vested in it only lost about $ 5000 per year of the pension
and all the medical benefits that were promised by the other companies.
Someone said find another job if not satisfied. That is not easy to do with
todays market. However atleast 10% have left for beter jobs in the last
couple of years and many more are looking.
>> Were these a combination of company & union promised benefits? Or was
> this *strictly* a privately owned company?
No union was involved at all. The Koch Brothers owned the company.
> this *strictly* a privately owned company?
The company changed owners several times over the 39 years I worked there.
Each time it changed hands it actually got beter before the Koch Brothers
bought it, then everything went down hill. Then they sold it to another
group and it really got bad. The Koch Brothers kept the pension fund. The
ones that were vested in it only lost about $ 5000 per year of the pension
and all the medical benefits that were promised by the other companies.
Someone said find another job if not satisfied. That is not easy to do with
todays market. However atleast 10% have left for beter jobs in the last
couple of years and many more are looking.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 7:59:52 PM11/27/12
to
"dbu" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> What I said was I would not depend on a company pension today, (for
> young workers I should have said), rather I would depend on a 401, with
> contributions from the company and myself. If the company didn't
> contribute what I thought was enough, then I'd go looking for another
> employer, if possible. Having said that, I agree with you that is not
> an easy option these days and if you have been a long time employee of a
> company it is impossible to switch plans from a pension to a 401, you
> just don't have enough time. You have been screwed by the company and I
> don't blame you for being upset about it.
> --
The company did start up a 401K plan to go along with the pension about 20
years ago. I put into that plan what the company would match and as I could
afford it. I also put in some money a couple of years to a self directed
IRA.
By doing all that I am ok on the money in retirement, but it did set me back
a few years from the eairly retirement.
My whole complaint is how a company can hire you at one thing and years
later when it is too late to change jobs and start over, they can change the
rules and there is nothing you can do about it. The CEOs and such usually
have something written into their contract to prevent this, but not so for
the common workers.
I told my son that anytime he could change companies for the beter, to do it
as the companies may be good for a while, but times may change.
He is in the IT department so many companies may need his service.
SMS
Nov 27, 2012, 8:01:58 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/2012 12:21 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> and an Obamma phone
Technically these should be called Reagan phones. Obama had nothing to
do with the phone program.
> and an Obamma phone
Technically these should be called Reagan phones. Obama had nothing to
do with the phone program.
Ralph Mowery
Nov 27, 2012, 8:19:45 PM11/27/12
to
news:50b56284$0$29849$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Reagan gave out home phones. Obama gave out the cell phones. With a home
phone there would probably only be one per house. With the cells if you
can believe the news show I watched, the same person may have several
phones. This extends the time from emergency usage to unlimiated. While not
legal, it hapens.
phone there would probably only be one per house. With the cells if you
can believe the news show I watched, the same person may have several
phones. This extends the time from emergency usage to unlimiated. While not
legal, it hapens.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Nov 27, 2012, 9:51:17 PM11/27/12
to
news:50b50728$0$29862$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> (within the law of course).
>
> Hostess did exactly what they wanted to do. They would have done it even
> if the union had agreed to further cuts. They were already on their second
> bankruptcy. There is nothing illegal about shutting down a private
> business and selling off the assets.
>
> The union probably could have delayed the liquidation for another six to
> twelve months, but the bottom line was that the iconic Hostess brands were
> the victim of changing consumer preferences and competition from other
> similar products. Personally I don't know anyone who had bought Twinkies,
> Ho-Hos, or Wonder Bread in years if not decades. The loss of Colombo
> products is too bad though.
>
>
So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no f---ing
sense at all!
Hostess was not a victim of competition, if nobody buys Twinkies that you
know of, then it doesn't matter that there one other company making them or
one thousand.
Just because you walk around with your head buried in the sand does not mean
that there are no customers to buy Twinkies and Ding Dongs, and sandwich
bread. Lots of people buy this stuff for their kid's lunch box, and unless
you hang around at the school yard then you will never see the consumers of
this stuff. My wife and I _never_ ever bought Twinkies or Ding Dongs, but I
tend to think we were an exception rather than the rule
Hostess _said_ it operated on very tight margins, and to meet the union
demands would have meant raising prices, which would have pushed the product
mix out of the lunchbox of the kids that carry this stuff to the lunchroom
everyday.
So, when they, and lots of ECONOMY EXPERTS say the company went under due to
the weight of the union contracts, why would you argue the point? Are you in
the boardroom and know something that the ECONOMY EXPERTS do not know -- I
tend to believe that they are more apt to know something you do not know
than the other way around.
So, the union shut down the shop and killed the jobs of 18,500 workers, and
you blame the employer for the job losses? Seriously?
> On 11/27/2012 9:10 AM, ByTor wrote:
>
>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
>> what it wants?
>
> Where did anyone ever say that they should not be allowed to do they want
>
>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
>> what it wants?
>
> (within the law of course).
>
> Hostess did exactly what they wanted to do. They would have done it even
> if the union had agreed to further cuts. They were already on their second
> bankruptcy. There is nothing illegal about shutting down a private
> business and selling off the assets.
>
> The union probably could have delayed the liquidation for another six to
> twelve months, but the bottom line was that the iconic Hostess brands were
> the victim of changing consumer preferences and competition from other
> similar products. Personally I don't know anyone who had bought Twinkies,
> Ho-Hos, or Wonder Bread in years if not decades. The loss of Colombo
> products is too bad though.
>
>
So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no f---ing
sense at all!
Hostess was not a victim of competition, if nobody buys Twinkies that you
know of, then it doesn't matter that there one other company making them or
one thousand.
Just because you walk around with your head buried in the sand does not mean
that there are no customers to buy Twinkies and Ding Dongs, and sandwich
bread. Lots of people buy this stuff for their kid's lunch box, and unless
you hang around at the school yard then you will never see the consumers of
this stuff. My wife and I _never_ ever bought Twinkies or Ding Dongs, but I
tend to think we were an exception rather than the rule
Hostess _said_ it operated on very tight margins, and to meet the union
demands would have meant raising prices, which would have pushed the product
mix out of the lunchbox of the kids that carry this stuff to the lunchroom
everyday.
So, when they, and lots of ECONOMY EXPERTS say the company went under due to
the weight of the union contracts, why would you argue the point? Are you in
the boardroom and know something that the ECONOMY EXPERTS do not know -- I
tend to believe that they are more apt to know something you do not know
than the other way around.
So, the union shut down the shop and killed the jobs of 18,500 workers, and
you blame the employer for the job losses? Seriously?
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 9:58:33 PM11/27/12
to
"Ralph Mowery" <rmower...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7d6dnZv3xqst-yjN...@earthlink.com...
are a) cheaper cost to the government and b) more effective. As to more
than one in the family that does not seem to be the case at least according
to the forms/paper work I've seen.
NotMe
Nov 27, 2012, 10:05:05 PM11/27/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k93u7c$ee8$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:50b50728$0$29862$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> On 11/27/2012 9:10 AM, ByTor wrote:
>>
>>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
>>> what it wants?
>>
>> Where did anyone ever say that they should not be allowed to do they want
>> (within the law of course).
>>
>> Hostess did exactly what they wanted to do. They would have done it even
>> if the union had agreed to further cuts. They were already on their
>> second bankruptcy. There is nothing illegal about shutting down a private
>> business and selling off the assets.
>>
>> The union probably could have delayed the liquidation for another six to
>> twelve months, but the bottom line was that the iconic Hostess brands
>> were the victim of changing consumer preferences and competition from
>> other similar products. Personally I don't know anyone who had bought
>> Twinkies, Ho-Hos, or Wonder Bread in years if not decades. The loss of
>> Colombo products is too bad though.
>>
>>
>
> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no f---ing
> sense at all!
Makes no sense until you look into the business model of those who engage in
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:50b50728$0$29862$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> On 11/27/2012 9:10 AM, ByTor wrote:
>>
>>> WHY shouldn't a PRIVATE, I say again, a PRIVATE company be ALLOWED to do
>>> what it wants?
>>
>> Where did anyone ever say that they should not be allowed to do they want
>> (within the law of course).
>>
>> Hostess did exactly what they wanted to do. They would have done it even
>> if the union had agreed to further cuts. They were already on their
>> second bankruptcy. There is nothing illegal about shutting down a private
>> business and selling off the assets.
>>
>> The union probably could have delayed the liquidation for another six to
>> twelve months, but the bottom line was that the iconic Hostess brands
>> were the victim of changing consumer preferences and competition from
>> other similar products. Personally I don't know anyone who had bought
>> Twinkies, Ho-Hos, or Wonder Bread in years if not decades. The loss of
>> Colombo products is too bad though.
>>
>>
>
> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no f---ing
> sense at all!
vulture capitalism. Either puff it up and sell or tear it apart and sell
the peices.
>
> Hostess was not a victim of competition, if nobody buys Twinkies that you
> know of, then it doesn't matter that there one other company making them
> or one thousand.
>
> Just because you walk around with your head buried in the sand does not
> mean that there are no customers to buy Twinkies and Ding Dongs, and
> sandwich bread. Lots of people buy this stuff for their kid's lunch box,
> and unless you hang around at the school yard then you will never see the
> consumers of this stuff. My wife and I _never_ ever bought Twinkies or
> Ding Dongs, but I tend to think we were an exception rather than the rule
>
> Hostess _said_ it operated on very tight margins, and to meet the union
> demands would have meant raising prices, which would have pushed the
> product mix out of the lunchbox of the kids that carry this stuff to the
> lunchroom everyday.
the company was viewed as toast.
>
> So, when they, and lots of ECONOMY EXPERTS say the company went under due
> to the weight of the union contracts, why would you argue the point? Are
> you in the boardroom and know something that the ECONOMY EXPERTS do not
> know -- I tend to believe that they are more apt to know something you do
> not know than the other way around.\
> So, when they, and lots of ECONOMY EXPERTS say the company went under due
> to the weight of the union contracts, why would you argue the point? Are
> you in the boardroom and know something that the ECONOMY EXPERTS do not
> know -- I tend to believe that they are more apt to know something you do
Curious who the ECONOMY EXPERTS you reference might be. As a general view
those in the DFW business community were of the opinion that the company was
on life support and was well into hospice care when the union pulled the
plub.
It was not a matter of if much less when just how soon Hostess would crash
and burn.
Message has been deleted
Your Name
Nov 28, 2012, 12:18:27 AM11/28/12
to
then sell them on eBay in six months to the Twinkie-addicts for $200
each. ;-)
Message has been deleted
SMS
Nov 28, 2012, 2:42:02 AM11/28/12
to
was expanded to cell phones during the George W. Bush administration.
Obama had nothing to do with the program. Now if you want to put some of
the blame on Bill Clinton that's okay since even though the cell phone
giveaways started during the George W. Bush administration, the proposal
to include cell phones began under Clinton.
<http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/>
The program is limited to one phone per qualifying household. If someone
is getting away with multiple phones then the companies administering
the program are allowing the fraud to be perpetuated since the
qualifications and limitations are clear.
Maybe you were watching a Fox "News" program, where their motto is, "We
Deceive, You Believe."
<http://www.newshounds.us/20121113_steve_doocy_mark_steyn_use_bogus_obama_phone_to_play_race_card>
SMS
Nov 28, 2012, 2:53:23 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/27/2012 6:51 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no
> f---ing sense at all!
Did you miss the whole 2012 presidential election? Romney got hammered
> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no
> f---ing sense at all!
for Bain Capital doing exactly the same thing.
It makes a lot of sense. The current owners believed that they stood to
gain more money by selling the assets than operating the company.
This is how it works: you acquire a business that has a weak business
case but valuable assets. You downsize, force cuts in wages and
benefits, ship production off-shore, sell assets, eventually declare
bankruptcy and liquidate the company, and do it all in a way to avoid
taxes. Then you blame the workers and talk about how bad it would be if
taxes on the wealthy were to go up.
Hostess was history long before this last event. The unions had already
made big concessions. As Forbes reported: "Hostess Exited Bankruptcy
Because Of "Substantial Concessions By The Two Big Unions." Forbes
explained that Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three
reasons, including that "substantial concessions" were made "by the two
big unions" -- the Teamsters and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco
Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Forbes further explained
that "annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million"
and that "thousands of union members lost their jobs.""
Hostess of course proceeded to break the union contract by ceasing
contributions to the pension fund. Now the owners are trying to get
themselves big bonuses as they liquidate assets.
SMS
Nov 28, 2012, 2:58:41 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/27/2012 9:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
<snip>
> Time for me to buy up all the Twinkies in the US import stores here and
> then sell them on eBay in six months to the Twinkie-addicts for $200
> each. ;-)
You're way too late. The frenzy on eBay for Hostess products will be
over in six months. It's in full frenzy mode now.
In any case, Twinkies are still produced in Canada
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/twinkies-wonder-bread-carry-on-in-canada-post-hostess.html>,
and it will be only a matter of time until a manufacturer in the U.S.
buys the brand and resumes production.
<snip>
> Time for me to buy up all the Twinkies in the US import stores here and
> then sell them on eBay in six months to the Twinkie-addicts for $200
> each. ;-)
over in six months. It's in full frenzy mode now.
In any case, Twinkies are still produced in Canada
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/twinkies-wonder-bread-carry-on-in-canada-post-hostess.html>,
and it will be only a matter of time until a manufacturer in the U.S.
buys the brand and resumes production.
Your Name
Nov 28, 2012, 3:11:41 PM11/28/12
to
In article <50b5c42e$0$29878$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
the second eBay wave. ;-)
> In any case, Twinkies are still produced in Canada
>
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/twinkies-wonder-bread-carry-on-in-canada-post-hostess.html>,
> and it will be only a matter of time until a manufacturer in the U.S.
> buys the brand and resumes production.
Maybe, maybe not. US shops could simply import them from Canada, or maybe
Twinkies simply aren't selling as well as they used to.
We had Twinkies sold here in New Zealand back in the 1980s, then they
disappeared and haven't come back (with the exception of one store that
imports some US brands - that was a couple of weeks ago, so they may not
have any left by now either).
We had a fast food chain called Georgie Pie that was bought up and closed
down by McDonald's in the 1980s. They keep saying they plan to bring the
brand back and legally stopping anyone else doing anything, but no sign of
it actually happening.
On the other hand, the little Smurf figurines were available here from BP
petrol stations (buy $X of petrol, buy a Smurf for $1) back then too. They
disappeared from sale here for decades, but made a revivial about 8 years
ago, unfortunately now in toy stores at an over-inflated $13+ price tag.
:-(
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 9:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Time for me to buy up all the Twinkies in the US import stores here and
> > then sell them on eBay in six months to the Twinkie-addicts for $200
> > each. ;-)
>
> You're way too late. The frenzy on eBay for Hostess products will be
> over in six months. It's in full frenzy mode now.
Yep, but in six month the current supply will all be gone and I can start
> On 11/27/2012 9:18 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Time for me to buy up all the Twinkies in the US import stores here and
> > then sell them on eBay in six months to the Twinkie-addicts for $200
> > each. ;-)
>
> You're way too late. The frenzy on eBay for Hostess products will be
> over in six months. It's in full frenzy mode now.
the second eBay wave. ;-)
> In any case, Twinkies are still produced in Canada
>
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-19/twinkies-wonder-bread-carry-on-in-canada-post-hostess.html>,
> and it will be only a matter of time until a manufacturer in the U.S.
> buys the brand and resumes production.
Twinkies simply aren't selling as well as they used to.
We had Twinkies sold here in New Zealand back in the 1980s, then they
disappeared and haven't come back (with the exception of one store that
imports some US brands - that was a couple of weeks ago, so they may not
have any left by now either).
We had a fast food chain called Georgie Pie that was bought up and closed
down by McDonald's in the 1980s. They keep saying they plan to bring the
brand back and legally stopping anyone else doing anything, but no sign of
it actually happening.
On the other hand, the little Smurf figurines were available here from BP
petrol stations (buy $X of petrol, buy a Smurf for $1) back then too. They
disappeared from sale here for decades, but made a revivial about 8 years
ago, unfortunately now in toy stores at an over-inflated $13+ price tag.
:-(
NotMe
Nov 28, 2012, 4:41:17 PM11/28/12
to
"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-291...@203-118-187-23.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
you can make a killing.
sms
Nov 28, 2012, 6:00:27 PM11/28/12
to
On 11/28/2012 12:11 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Maybe, maybe not. US shops could simply import them from Canada, or maybe
> Twinkies simply aren't selling as well as they used to.
If the eBay insanity could be counted on to continue it would be worth
> Maybe, maybe not. US shops could simply import them from Canada, or maybe
> Twinkies simply aren't selling as well as they used to.
driving up to Canada and buying massive quantities to sell on eBay.
Alas, by the time anyone does this the madness will be over and they'd
be stuck with a lot of product they can't sell. Fortunately Twinkies
have a long shelf life.
The day Hostess closed I did buy some of their products at Safeway just
to see what they were like. I didn't try the Twinkies, but the Ho-Hos
were okay. Still, for a junk food snack under $1, I'd rather buy a fresh
donut at the local independent donut shop,
<http://www.yelp.com/biz/stans-donut-shop-santa-clara>.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
ByTor
Nov 30, 2012, 7:00:38 AM11/30/12
to
In article <otudneW_iZOSBSXN...@giganews.com>,
nos...@nobama.com.invalid says...
>
> In article <k92s8b$a75$2...@dont-email.me>, ByTor <By...@snowdog.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
> > these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
> > win elections.
>
> The bakers union should buy the twinkies company now. That way they
> will have total control and can keep unions OUT. LOL. All the members
> of the bakers union will be shareholders.
>
> Let them put their money where the mouth is.
Than they become their own enemies?.......LMAO
Personally I'd like to see that & how it's handled. It will immedietly
eliminate a political agenda of an *oppressed* issue to stump on so that
will eliminate democrats target environment & Joe Biden will have
nothing to talk about. You know him, the Jimmy Hoffa wannabee........;0)
nos...@nobama.com.invalid says...
>
> In article <k92s8b$a75$2...@dont-email.me>, ByTor <By...@snowdog.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
> > these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
> > win elections.
>
> The bakers union should buy the twinkies company now. That way they
> will have total control and can keep unions OUT. LOL. All the members
> of the bakers union will be shareholders.
>
> Let them put their money where the mouth is.
Than they become their own enemies?.......LMAO
Personally I'd like to see that & how it's handled. It will immedietly
eliminate a political agenda of an *oppressed* issue to stump on so that
will eliminate democrats target environment & Joe Biden will have
nothing to talk about. You know him, the Jimmy Hoffa wannabee........;0)
Jeff Strickland
Nov 30, 2012, 12:30:07 PM11/30/12
to
news:50b5c2f1$0$29878$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until recently
when the union contracts caught up to it.
Romney & Co. went in and bought companies that were weak and about to fail
anyway, and broke them up and sold the parts for more than the whole. I get
how it works.
But Bain also bought lots of companies and sent management packing and
restructured the business model to make it work again, then sold the company
at a profit and somebody still runs those companies today. Just because a
capital group comes along does not demand that the parts be sold.
Having said that, it is coming out now that Hostess has not been paying into
the pension plan for something like a year, yet it paid executive bonuses as
the tide of debt was rising.
> On 11/27/2012 6:51 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no
>> f---ing sense at all!
>
> Did you miss the whole 2012 presidential election? Romney got hammered for
> Bain Capital doing exactly the same thing.
>
I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That is,
>
>> So, you are saying that Hostess WANTED to go under? That makes no
>> f---ing sense at all!
>
> Did you miss the whole 2012 presidential election? Romney got hammered for
> Bain Capital doing exactly the same thing.
>
Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until recently
when the union contracts caught up to it.
Romney & Co. went in and bought companies that were weak and about to fail
anyway, and broke them up and sold the parts for more than the whole. I get
how it works.
But Bain also bought lots of companies and sent management packing and
restructured the business model to make it work again, then sold the company
at a profit and somebody still runs those companies today. Just because a
capital group comes along does not demand that the parts be sold.
Having said that, it is coming out now that Hostess has not been paying into
the pension plan for something like a year, yet it paid executive bonuses as
the tide of debt was rising.
Message has been deleted
sms
Nov 30, 2012, 1:16:39 PM11/30/12
to
On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
no sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product,
if the demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on
every unit sold, then it can't continue.
hachiroku
Nov 30, 2012, 2:25:30 PM11/30/12
to
--
Ronald Reagan didn't spend his whole first term blaming Jimmy Carter.
Message has been deleted
Your Name
Nov 30, 2012, 4:07:50 PM11/30/12
to
In article <otudneW_iZOSBSXN...@giganews.com>, dbu
eat Twinkies to keep them in business. ;-)
<nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <k92s8b$a75$2...@dont-email.me>, ByTor <By...@snowdog.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
> > these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
> > win elections.
>
> The bakers union should buy the twinkies company now. That way they
> will have total control and can keep unions OUT. LOL. All the members
> of the bakers union will be shareholders.
>
> Let them put their money where the mouth is.
More like their money were you mouth is ... you're the one who'll have to
> In article <k92s8b$a75$2...@dont-email.me>, ByTor <By...@snowdog.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Until people see that unions are NO LONGER needed in this day & age
> > these issues of *dissention* & class warfare will ALWAYS be needed to
> > win elections.
>
> The bakers union should buy the twinkies company now. That way they
> will have total control and can keep unions OUT. LOL. All the members
> of the bakers union will be shareholders.
>
> Let them put their money where the mouth is.
eat Twinkies to keep them in business. ;-)
Your Name
Nov 30, 2012, 4:18:39 PM11/30/12
to
On 2012-11-30 09:30:07 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> Having said that, it is coming out now that Hostess has not been paying
> into the pension plan for something like a year, yet it paid executive
> bonuses as the tide of debt was rising.
The order of importance (from most important to least important) when it
>
> Having said that, it is coming out now that Hostess has not been paying
> into the pension plan for something like a year, yet it paid executive
> bonuses as the tide of debt was rising.
comes to greedy "big business" ...
Money for:
- management redudancy payouts
- management bonuses
- management perks
- management salaries (as much as possible, plus even more)
- management insurances / pensions
- management "fact finding" trips
.
.
.
- waste removal (uncle of CEO business)
- contract cleaning staff (son-in-law of CEO business)
- contract gardener (wife of CEO cousin)
.
.
.
- shareholder payouts
.
.
.
- company insurances
.
.
.
- paying suppliers (non-family ralations)
.
.
.
- government taxes (hide as much income as possible first)
.
.
.
- buying updated / new equipment
.
.
.
- worker salaries (as little as posible, minus even more)
- worker insurances / pensions
- worker redudancy payouts
:-(
sms
Nov 30, 2012, 4:21:03 PM11/30/12
to
On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
sms
Nov 30, 2012, 5:08:50 PM11/30/12
to
On 11/30/2012 1:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> More like their money were you mouth is ... you're the one who'll have to
> eat Twinkies to keep them in business. ;-)
If there is a business case for Twinkies and the other Hostess products
> More like their money were you mouth is ... you're the one who'll have to
> eat Twinkies to keep them in business. ;-)
then someone will buy no only the brands, but the production facilities
since the machinery to manufacture the products is custom made for those
products. The former employees that know how to operate the machinery
will likely be first in line for the jobs, though they will likely be at
much lower wages than they were striking for.
This all would have eventually happened anyway. Hostess was losing too
much money to continue on its own. The strike was a convenient excuse
for the company to shut down. As part of a more diversified food
producer, that also produces products more in line with changing
consumer preferences, the company could possibly survive.
hachiroku
Nov 30, 2012, 5:54:11 PM11/30/12
to
person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
sms
Nov 30, 2012, 7:37:46 PM11/30/12
to
On 11/30/2012 2:54 PM, hachiroku wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:21:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
You do realize that the ACA is being implemented in stages. It's not
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:21:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
until 2014 that we will see the full benefits. Fortunately, a majority
of Americans now support the ACA, so with popular support there will
likely be less Republican obfuscation.
sms
Nov 30, 2012, 8:37:21 PM11/30/12
to
On 11/27/2012 5:19 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:50b56284$0$29849$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> On 11/27/2012 12:21 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>> and an Obamma phone
>>
>> Technically these should be called Reagan phones. Obama had nothing to do
>> with the phone program.
>
> Reagan gave out home phones. Obama gave out the cell phones.
Nope. Obama had nothing to do with the free cell phone program. Blame W,
>> On 11/27/2012 12:21 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>> and an Obamma phone
>>
>> Technically these should be called Reagan phones. Obama had nothing to do
>> with the phone program.
>
> Reagan gave out home phones. Obama gave out the cell phones.
that's when it began. Blame Clinton, the legislation expanding the
program to cell phones was passed when he was president. Blame Reagan,
he's the one that started the tradition of giving free phone service to
poor people.
Hopefully you're not one of the few lunatics still clinging to the
"Obama gave people free stuff that's how he won" idiocy. Left unanswered
by these crazies is why the states that receive the most entitlements
from the federal government were solid red, and the states that receive
the least in entitlements were solid blue. Desperately searching for
rationalization as to why voters weren't fooled by all of the right-wing
lies and fabrications, they continue to come up with new ideas. If only
their energies could be re-directed into something worthwhile.
hachiroku
Nov 30, 2012, 9:06:42 PM11/30/12
to
health care reform can happen. But that won't be under this President. It
would take one that would actually read the bill before signing it.
And you spelled "pay the full bill" wrong.
Message has been deleted
sms
Dec 1, 2012, 11:13:53 AM12/1/12
to
On 12/1/2012 4:20 AM, dbu wrote:
> convenient excuse? You just said why they had to close down. No money.
> You call it a convenient excuse.
It was a convenient excuse for the management because the company was
losing so much money that even with the union wage concessions they
would not have been profitable. It was much more practical to shut it
down and sell off the pieces.
> steven the more you post the stupider you appear.
Your lack of understanding of basic economic and business issues does
not help your standing. Baseless personal attacks don't help it either.
> convenient excuse? You just said why they had to close down. No money.
> You call it a convenient excuse.
It was a convenient excuse for the management because the company was
losing so much money that even with the union wage concessions they
would not have been profitable. It was much more practical to shut it
down and sell off the pieces.
> steven the more you post the stupider you appear.
Your lack of understanding of basic economic and business issues does
not help your standing. Baseless personal attacks don't help it either.
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Dec 1, 2012, 12:34:10 PM12/1/12
to
"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
that work?
I get how the economics work, the price has to be set where the sales price
covers the expenses of making the product. THAT'S THE POINT! The labor costs
rise when the labor union demands that workers get an ever increasing
pension pay out, and the wages grow to $25 or $30 to run the packing
machine -- which is all but completely automatic, but the union negotiated
that there be a person there to man the button.
My brother once went to a factory to deliver some <whatever>. He showed up
11:45 for a delivery that should take about 5 minutes, maybe 10. At 12:30 a
management guy came out and saw him standing around, "what are you doing
here?" Mike said that he was waiting to be unloaded so he could move on to
his next stop. The guy went out to the warehouse and saw a guy sitting in
the crane reading a book, "Hey Bobby, come down here and unload this guy so
he can move on down the road."
"FUCK YOU!" came the reply, "I'm on the crane today."
It was a union shop. The workers can tell the boss to take a flying fuck,
and not be protected by the union. This is the sort of behavior that raises
the cost of goods, and it a Crap Economy, this is kind of stuff that the
union should not allow employees to do. Nobody should be allowed to refuse
to do whatever is needed to be done when it is required to be done by
whomever needs it to be finished. If a guy is actively doing a project and
the secretary comes out and gives a new assignement, then maybe refusal to
take on the new job is warranted. BUT, this guy was doing nothing and
somebody wanted something done so a customer or supplier could move along,
and the protected reply was, "fuck you!" Seriously, this is the kind of shit
that not even a union should condone.
Now there is a story in the news in Los Angeles where a school teacher --
4th Grade, if I remember right -- was taken out of the classroom because he
was smearing his semen on cookies and passing them out to the children. He
has a long list of various kinds of assaults against the children, the union
protects him from beint outright fired. He has been out of the classroom for
a year, collecting a salary while some investigation is taking place. The
school district paid him $40,000 to go away, but they paid him a full wage
for a year before they could get rid of the guy.
Having a union to protect a worker from some minor infraction is one thing,
but this case has the union protecting the job of a guy that has criminal
charges hanging over his head, and the employer can't do squat except put
him in a room with other teachers that have been removed from the classroom
for doing bad things with kids. The Los Angeles Unified School District --
because of the teacher's union -- is the perfect place for a pedophile to go
to work. The bad guy gets to hang around kids all day, he/she can engage in
all manner of abuse with the children, and then they are paid full salary
for a year or more while somebody looks into it, AND if they manage to
become tenured before the abuse becomes known, then they can collect a full
pension that is among the highest paid teacher pensions in the country. ALL
OF THIS COSTS YOU MONEY, and when it happens -- obviously there is
misconduct at private companies that will not be from child abuse of the
very children one is charged with protecting and nurturing, but there is
still costly conduct that should cause an employee to be fired on the spot
but the union protects the worker -- in private enterprise then it raises
the cost of goods, which means you have to pay more.
Labor unions cost you money. Period. They might protect good and honest
people, and that's okay. But they also protect the scum of the earth, and
that's not okay.
Message has been deleted
sms
Dec 1, 2012, 1:16:24 PM12/1/12
to
On 12/1/2012 9:34 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> does that work?
Wow! Who ever said that they'd been selling them at a loss for 50 years?
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> does that work?
I give up. You have formed your own ideas based on incorrect information
and nothing will make you understand because you don't want to.
Message has been deleted
NotMe
Dec 1, 2012, 2:00:48 PM12/1/12
to
"hachiroku" <haci...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:50b9474a$0$34285$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:21:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
There are (far too) many cases such as you report. One of the pushes toward
>
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
both Obamacare and Romneycare where those very incidents.
NotMe
Dec 1, 2012, 2:05:10 PM12/1/12
to
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k9df2s$c1o$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
>>> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
>>> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
>>
>> Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
>>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
>>
>> The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply no
>> sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if
>> the demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every
>> unit sold, then it can't continue.
>>
>
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> does that work?
The company has been in the toilet for years. The union action only moved
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
>>> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
>>> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
>>
>> Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
>>
>> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
>>
>> The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply no
>> sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if
>> the demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every
>> unit sold, then it can't continue.
>>
>
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> does that work?
up the inevatable.
The company and it's managment have been the butt of jokes in the DFW
busienss community for years.
Jeff Strickland
Dec 1, 2012, 1:56:44 PM12/1/12
to
news:k9dhht$rga$1...@dont-email.me...
YOU SAID
same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I just
wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
Seems like a simple thing to me. OR, they claim that labor has changed the
business case recently, and what they have done for 50 years is no longer
sustainable.
Twinkies, Hostess, is a sustainable business model (or it was until
recently), so you must have been talking about some other business.
HINT
Labor killed GM.
"The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply no
sustainable business case. "
To me, that means they sell at a loss. Since theyj have been selling the
sustainable business case. "
same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I just
wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
Seems like a simple thing to me. OR, they claim that labor has changed the
business case recently, and what they have done for 50 years is no longer
sustainable.
Twinkies, Hostess, is a sustainable business model (or it was until
recently), so you must have been talking about some other business.
HINT
Labor killed GM.
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 4:10:22 PM12/1/12
to
In article <k9df2s$c1o$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jeff Strickland"
Game consoles are sold at a loss and they make money on the games.
Twinkies are sold at a loss and they make money on the medical referral
fees. ;-)
<crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> >> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
> >> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
> >> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
> >
> > Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
> >
> >
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
> >
> > The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply no
> > sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if the
> > demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every unit
> > sold, then it can't continue.
>
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How does
> that work?
Printer makers sell printers at a loss and make money on the ink cartridges.
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> >> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself. That
> >> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
> >> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
> >
> > Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
> >
> >
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
> >
> > The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply no
> > sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if the
> > demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every unit
> > sold, then it can't continue.
>
> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How does
> that work?
Game consoles are sold at a loss and they make money on the games.
Twinkies are sold at a loss and they make money on the medical referral
fees. ;-)
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 4:13:59 PM12/1/12
to
In article <FOidnWbAUofFpCfN...@giganews.com>, dbu
<nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <k9dac7$e21$2...@dont-email.me>,
> If I owned a company and decided it wasn't making any money or losing
> money, then I shut it down, why would I need an excuse? Your thinking
> is goofy steven.
I'd get rid of a couple of unnecessary fools in management - saving their
over-bloated salaries and perks alone would keep all the real workers in a
job for a year or two longer. :-)
<nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <k9dac7$e21$2...@dont-email.me>,
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/1/2012 4:20 AM, dbu wrote:
> > >
> > > convenient excuse? You just said why they had to close down. No money.
> > > You call it a convenient excuse.
> >
> > It was a convenient excuse for the management because the company was
> > losing so much money that even with the union wage concessions they
> > would not have been profitable. It was much more practical to shut it
> > down and sell off the pieces.
>
> It was a private company, why would they need an excuse to shut it down?
> > On 12/1/2012 4:20 AM, dbu wrote:
> > >
> > > convenient excuse? You just said why they had to close down. No money.
> > > You call it a convenient excuse.
> >
> > It was a convenient excuse for the management because the company was
> > losing so much money that even with the union wage concessions they
> > would not have been profitable. It was much more practical to shut it
> > down and sell off the pieces.
>
> If I owned a company and decided it wasn't making any money or losing
> money, then I shut it down, why would I need an excuse? Your thinking
> is goofy steven.
I'd get rid of a couple of unnecessary fools in management - saving their
over-bloated salaries and perks alone would keep all the real workers in a
job for a year or two longer. :-)
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 4:17:00 PM12/1/12
to
'edible' after 500 years") ... even though still apparently very popular.
:-)
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 4:21:45 PM12/1/12
to
"hachiroku" <haci...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:50b9474a$0$34285$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:21:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
I'm not sure how it works in America, but the real issue is the morons who
news:50b9474a$0$34285$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:21:03 -0800, sms wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 11:25 AM, hachiroku wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's see what happens with Obamacare.
>>
>> It's already holding down premium increases, so you don't have to wait.
>
> But hasn't sone anything to get people the care they sometimes need. A
> person I know got denied surgery to remove a brain tumor.
decide to climb a mountain (or whatever) fall off and then get rescued and
medical treatment at tax-payer's expense ... if they choose to do idiotic,
risky things, then they should either pay or suffer the consequences by
themselves.
Message has been deleted
Jeff Strickland
Dec 1, 2012, 4:35:33 PM12/1/12
to
"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-216.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <k9df2s$c1o$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself.
>> >> That
>> >> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
>> >> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
>> >
>> > Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
>> >
>> >
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
>> >
>> > The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
>> > no
>> > sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if
>> > the
>> > demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every unit
>> > sold, then it can't continue.
>>
>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
>> does
>> that work?
>
> Printer makers sell printers at a loss and make money on the ink
> cartridges.
>
That business model does not apply, but thanks for playing. You buy a
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:k9at6d$ki0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > On 11/30/2012 9:30 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know how it works, but usually the company does not kill itself.
>> >> That
>> >> is, Hostess was a viable company that was doing reasonalby well until
>> >> recently when the union contracts caught up to it.
>> >
>> > Well not according to several reports. One good one is at:
>> >
>> >
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/11/18/hostess-twinkie-defense-is-a-management-failure/>
>> >
>> > The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
>> > no
>> > sustainable business case. Even if there is demand for the product, if
>> > the
>> > demand is dependent on a price so low that you lose money on every unit
>> > sold, then it can't continue.
>>
>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
>> does
>> that work?
>
> Printer makers sell printers at a loss and make money on the ink
> cartridges.
>
printer and have to put more ink into it. You buy a Twinkie, and when it's
gone, it's gone. You don't buy more crap to squeeze into the middle.
> Game consoles are sold at a loss and they make money on the games.
>
> Twinkies are sold at a loss and they make money on the medical referral
> fees. ;-)
sms
Dec 1, 2012, 6:48:04 PM12/1/12
to
On 12/1/2012 10:56 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9dhht$rga$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/1/2012 9:34 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
>>> does that work?
>>
>> Wow! Who ever said that they'd been selling them at a loss for 50
>> years? I give up. You have formed your own ideas based on incorrect
>> information and nothing will make you understand because you don't
>> want to.
>
>
> YOU SAID
> "The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
> no sustainable business case. "
>
>
> To me, that means they sell at a loss. Since theyj have been selling the
> same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I
> just wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
No, the business case has drastically changed. Consumer tastes have
>
> "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:k9dhht$rga$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12/1/2012 9:34 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
>>> does that work?
>>
>> Wow! Who ever said that they'd been selling them at a loss for 50
>> years? I give up. You have formed your own ideas based on incorrect
>> information and nothing will make you understand because you don't
>> want to.
>
>
> YOU SAID
> "The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
> no sustainable business case. "
>
>
> To me, that means they sell at a loss. Since theyj have been selling the
> same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I
> just wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
changed and the company hasn't come out with newer products to address
those tastes. The company is now saddled with a huge amount of debt that
the takeover artists caused. The cost of raw materials has changed. The
cost of labor has changed. There is new competition from both other junk
food manufacturers selling under their own name as well as competition
from store brands.
Why on earth you think that they have been selling at a loss for 50
years is beyond comprehensible. I have to think that you really do
understand the facts and are just being obtuse, because the alternative
would be to believe that...well I don't believe in personal attacks on
Usenet so I won't go there.
sms
Dec 1, 2012, 6:51:34 PM12/1/12
to
On 12/1/2012 11:05 AM, NotMe wrote:
<snip>
> The company has been in the toilet for years.
But not for 50 years. There was a time when consumer preferences, the
cost of raw materials, the cost of labor, the cost of marketing and
distribution, allowed the products to be sold at a profit. No more.
White bread sales are way down besides the sales of the dessert cakes
being way down, and there's a lot more competition for the remaining
market for these products. Store brands are less expensive and probably
not any worse in terms of flavor and quality.
I think Jeff is just playing devil's advocate.
<snip>
> The company has been in the toilet for years.
cost of raw materials, the cost of labor, the cost of marketing and
distribution, allowed the products to be sold at a profit. No more.
White bread sales are way down besides the sales of the dessert cakes
being way down, and there's a lot more competition for the remaining
market for these products. Store brands are less expensive and probably
not any worse in terms of flavor and quality.
I think Jeff is just playing devil's advocate.
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 8:25:55 PM12/1/12
to
In article <k9dt7e$4ui$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jeff Strickland"
Oh dear, another humourless idiot who doesn't understand what a smiley is
for. :-\
for. :-\
Your Name
Dec 1, 2012, 8:35:15 PM12/1/12
to
In article <k9e4vr$gar$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/2012 10:56 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:k9dhht$rga$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 12/1/2012 9:34 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> >>> does that work?
> >>
> >> Wow! Who ever said that they'd been selling them at a loss for 50
> >> years? I give up. You have formed your own ideas based on incorrect
> >> information and nothing will make you understand because you don't
> >> want to.
> >
> >
> > YOU SAID
> > "The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
> > no sustainable business case. "
> >
> >
> > To me, that means they sell at a loss. Since theyj have been selling the
> > same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I
> > just wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
>
> No, the business case has drastically changed. Consumer tastes have
> changed and the company hasn't come out with newer products to address
> those tastes.
<snip>
> On 12/1/2012 10:56 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >
> > "sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:k9dhht$rga$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 12/1/2012 9:34 AM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
> >>
> >>> They have been selling Twinkies at a loss for more than 50 years?! How
> >>> does that work?
> >>
> >> Wow! Who ever said that they'd been selling them at a loss for 50
> >> years? I give up. You have formed your own ideas based on incorrect
> >> information and nothing will make you understand because you don't
> >> want to.
> >
> >
> > YOU SAID
> > "The bottom line is that for some products and services there is simply
> > no sustainable business case. "
> >
> >
> > To me, that means they sell at a loss. Since theyj have been selling the
> > same business case for 50 years, and YOU said they do it at a loss, I
> > just wondered how they could sustain the loss for 50 years.
>
> No, the business case has drastically changed. Consumer tastes have
> changed and the company hasn't come out with newer products to address
> those tastes.
Here's a few ideas:
- Strawberry Cream Twinke
- Apricot Cream Twinkie
- Chocolate Cream Twinkie
- Chocolate Covered Twinkie
- Chocolate Covered Choclate Cream Twinkie
- Chocolate Chip Twinkie
- Chocolate Chip Chocolate Cream Twinkie
- Chocolate Covered Chocolate Chip Choclate Cream Twinkie
- Ice Cream Twinkie
- Ice Cream Strawberry Twinke
- Ice Cream Apricot Twinkie
- Ice Cream Chocolate Cream Twinkie
- Ice Cream Chocolate Covered Twinkie
- Ice Cream Ice Cream Chocolate Covered Choclate Cream Twinkie
- Ice Cream Chocolate Chip Twinkie
- Ice Cream Chocolate Chip Chocolate Cream Twinkie
- Ice Cream Chocolate Covered Chocolate Chip Choclate Cream Twinkie
- ...
for the healthy-eaters there's:
- Brussel Sprout Cream Twinkie
- Wheatgrass Cream Twinkie
- All Grains Sponge Twinkie
- Sushi Twinkie
- ...
and of course everyone's favourite ... the Double-Deep Fried Twinkie
(maybe in partnership with KFC). ;-)
hachiroku
Dec 1, 2012, 11:52:58 PM12/1/12
to
hachiroku
Dec 1, 2012, 11:53:52 PM12/1/12
to
services received.
hachiroku
Dec 2, 2012, 12:00:14 AM12/2/12
to
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 13:00:48 -0600, NotMe wrote:
>
>
been covered.
Get ready for the Death Panels!
Obamacare is smoke and mirrors, and a shadow of what it should have been.
i don't know how old you guys are, but think back when you were kids. If
you Dad (or Mom) had a good job with a good company, then they probably
had Blue Cross/Blue Shield or an equivalent coverage, and it was covered
almost in full, with a nominal payment. Since then the For Profits have
taken over, and THAT is what Oabamacare should have addressed. Instead it
got watered down and watered down, and instead of killing it the Empty
Suit had it pushed through so at least he had some kind of "Legacy".
Portions of it come on line the year after nest, but the brunt doesn't
take effect....
until he's out of office.
It's all over but the crying.
Oh, and the taxes.
But he had to do something. Getting good health care from your employer
means you have to be EMPLOYED, and this moron sure doesn't have a handle
on the economy.
Only how to "organize" to get money from the government.
NotMe
Dec 2, 2012, 1:43:46 AM12/2/12
to
"hachiroku" <haci...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
reference.
There are many such incidents that can be showcased the point was that both
programs make a distint effort to rectify and limit the occurance.
NotMe
Dec 2, 2012, 1:48:04 AM12/2/12
to
"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
NotMe
Dec 2, 2012, 1:50:27 AM12/2/12
to
"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-216.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
in the way the company was being run.
sms
Dec 2, 2012, 11:57:02 AM12/2/12
to
On 12/1/2012 1:21 PM, Your Name wrote:
> I'm not sure how it works in America, but the real issue is the morons who
> decide to climb a mountain (or whatever) fall off and then get rescued and
> medical treatment at tax-payer's expense ... if they choose to do idiotic,
> risky things, then they should either pay or suffer the consequences by
> themselves.
Pretty sure that they are billed for those rescues. Whether they
> I'm not sure how it works in America, but the real issue is the morons who
> decide to climb a mountain (or whatever) fall off and then get rescued and
> medical treatment at tax-payer's expense ... if they choose to do idiotic,
> risky things, then they should either pay or suffer the consequences by
> themselves.
actually pay or not is the question. But these people tend to be pretty
well off so they may be able to pay, and they may have evacuation insurance.
Where do you draw the line? Should someone that goes to the buffet every
day and is obese not pay for medical treatment, but someone who gets in
trouble climbing a mountain have to pay for treatment?
Obese people and smokers may end up needing more medical treatment in
the short term, but they also consume a lot less Social Security and
Medicare in the long term.
Your Name
Dec 2, 2012, 3:00:14 PM12/2/12
to
In article <k9etj8$vl8$2...@dont-email.me>, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-55.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <k9dt7e$4ui$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jeff Strickland"
> > <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-216.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> >> >
> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-55.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <k9dt7e$4ui$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jeff Strickland"
> > <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YourName-021...@203-118-187-216.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> >> >
> >> > Twinkies are sold at a loss and they make money on the medical referral
> >> > fees. ;-)
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > Oh dear, another humourless idiot who doesn't understand what a smiley is
> > for. :-\
>
> Flash Jay Leno/Bob Hope you're not!!
Thank God for that ... Jay Leno is a moron who isn't even remotely funny
> >> > fees. ;-)
> >>
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > Oh dear, another humourless idiot who doesn't understand what a smiley is
> > for. :-\
>
> Flash Jay Leno/Bob Hope you're not!!
(although David Letterman and Howie Mandel are far worse).
Your Name
Dec 2, 2012, 7:26:03 PM12/2/12
to
a case-by-case basis), but others are easy. At the most basic level, one
place to draw the line is simple "necessity / need". Mountain climbing,
for example, is definitely not necessary (unless it's your job to rescue
the morons).
sms
Dec 2, 2012, 8:37:59 PM12/2/12
to
On 12/2/2012 4:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
> Mountain climbing,
> for example, is definitely not necessary (unless it's your job to rescue
> the morons).
Consuming mass quantities of fat, salt, sugar, or alcohol is also not
> Mountain climbing,
> for example, is definitely not necessary (unless it's your job to rescue
> the morons).
necessary.
Part of the premium for health insurance should be based on a person's
health when they make unhealthy choices.
It's really hard to define each case. What about using safety equipment?
Some states allow motorcyclists to not wear helmets provided they
provide proof of health insurance. Of course smokers have traditionally
paid more for life insurance, and presumably health insurance if buying
it on their own.
Message has been deleted
Your Name
Dec 3, 2012, 12:13:37 AM12/3/12
to
In article <k9gvpp$dr9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2012 4:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > Mountain climbing,
> > for example, is definitely not necessary (unless it's your job to rescue
> > the morons).
>
> Consuming mass quantities of fat, salt, sugar, or alcohol is also not
> necessary.
I never said they were. I simply gave one example where it was extremely
> On 12/2/2012 4:26 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > Mountain climbing,
> > for example, is definitely not necessary (unless it's your job to rescue
> > the morons).
>
> Consuming mass quantities of fat, salt, sugar, or alcohol is also not
> necessary.
easy to see which side of the line it was one, and I said there were
other cases were it would be difficult to define and where it would have
to be on a case-by-case basis.
> Part of the premium for health insurance should be based on a person's
> health when they make unhealthy choices.
>
> It's really hard to define each case. What about using safety equipment?
> Some states allow motorcyclists to not wear helmets provided they
> provide proof of health insurance. Of course smokers have traditionally
> paid more for life insurance, and presumably health insurance if buying
> it on their own.
things like mountain climbing, sky diving, etc. except when it's
work-related. For example, New Zealand has an Accident Compensation
Corporation (basically a form of compulsory healthcare for employees where
the fees are taken out of your wages or paid by self-employed people)
which does have higher fees for those in riskier occupations.
Some insurance forms do already have clauses in the small print that
disallow claims for "silly" things - but their definition of what
qualifies as "silly" will be different. (For example, car insurance is
already usually disallowed if it's proven by police that you were driving
drunk at the time of the accident.)
0 new messages