- Watching Gamers:Dorkness Rising #
- Charisma? Weee! #
- Tweeting a dork movie? I'm a bit of a geek. #
- We just met and the first thing you do, after boinking a stranger in the presence of the king, is to murder a peasant? #
- Every movie needs a PvN interlude. #
- Everything's better with pirates. #
- Waffles? Recognize. #
- The Spatula of Purity shall scramble the eggs of your malfeasance. #
- Checkout clerks licking their fingers to separate bags or count change is gross. #
- Watching Sparkles the Vampire, Part 2: Bella's Moodswing. #twilight #
- @penfed was a waste of money. $20 down the drain to join, wouldn't give a worthwhile limit, so I can't transfer a balance. #
- @JAlanGrey It's pretty lame. The first one was ok. This one didn't improve on the original. in reply to JAlanGrey #
- RT @tferriss: Are you taking snake oil? Beautiful data visualization of scientific evidence for popular supplements: http://ping.fm/pqaDi #
- Don't need more shelves, more storage, more organization. Just need less stuff. #
- @BeatingBroke is hosting the Festival of Frugality #226 http://su.pr/80Osvn #
- RT @tferriss: Cool. RT @cjbruce link directly to a time in a YouTube video by adding #t 2m50s to end of the URL (change the time). #
- RT @tferriss: From learning shorthand to fast mental math – The Mentat Wiki: http://ping.fm/fFbhJ #
- RT @wisebread: How rich are you? Check out this list (It may shock you!!!) http://www.globalrichlist.com/ #
- RT @tferriss: RT @aysegul_c free alternative to RosettS: livemocha.com for classes, forvo.com for pronunc., lang8.com for writing correction #
- Childish isn't an insult. http://su.pr/ABUziY #
- Canceled the Dish tonight. #
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-06-19
- RT @bargainr: Life in North Korea is absolutely dreadful http://nyti.ms/dAcL26 #
- RT @bitfs: Weekly Favorites and Gratitude!: My Favorite Posts this Week Jeff at Deliver Away Debt threw together the .. http://bit.ly/9J0gGo #
- @LiveRealNow is giving away a copy of Delivering Happiness(@dhbook). Follow and RT to enter. http://bit.ly/czd31X # #
- Baseless claims, biased assumptions, poor understanding of history. Don't bother. #AnimalSpirits #KeynesianCult #
- RT @zappos: Super exciting! "Delivering Happiness" hit #1 on NY Times Bestseller list! Thanks everyone! Details: http://bit.ly/96vEfF #
- @ericabiz Funny, we found a kitten in a box last week. Unfortunately, it was abandoned there, not playing. Now, we have a 5th cat. in reply to ericabiz #
Twinkies: A Failure of Unionization
Twinkies may survive nuclear warfare, but the iconic sweet treat ultimately couldn’t withstand the might of the unionized workforce. Faced with mounting losses and overwhelming debt, due in no small part to the relentless demands of the various unions representing the nearly 19,000 employees, Hostess Brands filed bankruptcy for the second time in January 2012 and ultimately requested permission to liquidate it’s assets in November of last year when a buyer failed to materialize. While many factors played a part in the demise of the maker of such all-American snacks as Ding Dongs and Ring Dings, as well as childhood favorite Wonderbread, there is no denying the fact that costs imposed by union contracts were a major factor in the shuttering of this once-beloved company.
While there is certainly plenty of blame to go around, the simple fact is that nearly 97 percent of the company’s unsecured claims were from employee pension funds, according to the Chapter 11 filing. How did those claims arise? Simply put, the skyrocketing pension expenses were caused by the unions continuing to push for overly generous retirement rewards despite overwhelming evidence that the company could never sustain those costs. True, the unions did agree to considerable concessions prior to and even following the first bankruptcy filing in 2004. However, that was only after union officials had pushed wages and other benefits into the stratosphere, even though Hostess has been struggling for years to remain competitive.
Certainly America’s changing eating habits, increased competition from such companies as McKee Foods, makers of Little Debbie snack cakes, and rising commodity costs all contributed to the ultimate demise of Twinkies. There is no doubt, though, that union contracts inhibited the company’s ability to adapt and make the necessary changes to remain profitable. Not only were employee costs out of control, ridiculous union rules made it nearly impossible for the company to make money. These are just a few of the rules that hampered Hostess’ management:
- Twinkies and Wonder Bread could not be delivered on the same truck.
- Drivers could only deliver one product, even if they did not have a load and a load of another product was waiting to go out.
- Drivers could only drive. They had to wait for loaders to fill their trucks.
- Likewise, loaders could only handle one product. Their contract prohibited a Twinkie loader from helping out if the Wonder Bread loaders were shorthanded.
Yes, management agreed to these terms, but often they were forced to do so in order to prevent a costly strike. In fact, it was a labor strike that lead to the decision to liquidate.
Unions are meant to protect workers from dangerous working conditions, overbearing management and unfair labor practices. Ensuring a living wage and decent benefits is another of their responsibilities. However, it is evident that in this case, the unions became as much an enemy of the Hostess employees as of the company’s management. As a result of their unwillingness to compromise and make wage and benefit concessions, almost 20,000 people no longer have a job that needs to be protected. In the end, the unions drove not only the company but themselves out of business.
Not to fear, however. Two private equity firms acquired Hostess’ assets last fall and are beginning to turn the company around. Production of Twinkies began again in June, and the gooey sponge cakes returned to store shelves on July 15. The workforce has been dramatically reduced and will not be unionized. In the end, probably the only winner in this battle is America’s sweet tooth.
Related articles
Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce
Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.
The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.
Related articles
Future Me Returns
This is a conversation between me and my future self, if my financial path wouldn’t have positively forked 2 years ago. The transcript is available here.
What would your future self have to say to you?
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-07-10
- Happy Independence Day! Be thankful for what you've been given by those who have gone before! #
- Waiting for fireworks with the brats. Excitement is high. #
- @PhilVillarreal Amazing. I'm really Cringer. That makes me feel creepy. in reply to PhilVillarreal #
- Built a public life-maintenance calendar in GCal. https://liverealnow.net/y7ph #
- @ericabiz makes webinars fun! Even if her house didn't collapse in the middle of it. #
- BOFH + idiot = bad combination #
