Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses News

The Glorious Return of the Twinkie 528

Posted by samzenpus
from the get-in-my-belly dept.
iggymanz writes "The geek food staple the Twinkie is coming back. The sturdy main component of the foundation to the geek four food groups of sugar, fat, caffeine and bacon — with rumored shelf life on the order of the time span to cool a white dwarf to room temperature — the Twinkie, along with Ding-Dongs, Ho-Ho's and Cupcakes, will be returning 15 July 2013 to the shelves under new management of Apollo Global Management and C. Dean Metropoulous & Co which paid over 400 mega dollars (U.S.) for the brands."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Glorious Return of the Twinkie

Comments Filter:
  • by sjbe (173966) on Monday June 24, 2013 @12:00PM (#44093711)

    The geek food staple the Twinkie is coming back.

    Ok, show of hands. Who among you has actually consumed a twinkie after grade school? Last one I had was during the Reagan administration. Obviously they sell but I cannot recall the last time I saw anyone actually eat one. It's like the National Enquirer of foods. They apparently sell lots but you never actually see anyone buying them.

    I don't really know any geeks who eat twinkies either. Is this a thing in some part of the country? I know some geeks who are overly fond of sugary treats (I'm one) but twinkies never seem to be in the shopping cart.

  • by hedwards (940851) on Monday June 24, 2013 @12:44PM (#44094275)

    Twinkies and other processed foods aren't the problem. One Twinkies a week isn't likely to make a person gain weight, unless they're taking in exactly the number of calories that they're burning.

    The problem is that people aren't moving enough and are eating too much. The fact that Twinkies are effectively just a source of calories without any redeeming value doesn't really factor into it.

    I remember having a Twinkie once, and it was one of the most disgusting "foods" I've ever eaten. And I've eaten spiders, scorpions and tripe.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2013 @12:55PM (#44094425)

    $1.8 million to a management team (the collected bonuses) is
    a) Miniscule in comparison to how much the labor wanted for their jobs where they press a button and no skill is required.
    b) The only real motivation for the management team to stay with a sinking ship instead of looking for work elsewhere, when a management team was needed.

    Anonymous because Slashdot karma. Anybody who isn't wildly anti-business gets modded down here.

  • Re:Mega Dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:12PM (#44094619) Homepage Journal

    Why should it? In 1975(just before the Brazilian Freeze Coffee (an 8 oz cup) on average was 30 cents, 50 cents a year later)
    From http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi [westegg.com]

    What cost $.30 in 1975 would cost $1.26 in 2012.

    A Tall at Starbucks* is 1.35. And it's in a coffee specialty store, not a Denny's like restaurant.

    *I'm not a fan of Starbucks, I use them becasue they are pretty much everywhere.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:13PM (#44094643)

    A few million in management bonuses has exactly dick to do with the billions paid in wages each year. Get some perspective, the managements job is to do EXACTLY that. Its not a charity, its a business.

    And lets remember that when hostess closed up shop, the union tried to get an injunction against the sale of assets to which the judge replied basically saying 'no, you got what you deserved'.

    The union pushed too hard and lost, next time perhaps they won't be so quick to side with the greedy fucks in the union ... who also give themselves millions in bonuses when they do ... well pretty much ANYTHING.

    Unions in America are a joke, they're just like lawyers. They don't actually accomplish anything, but do their best to drive up costs so they can take a bigger cut from the workers.

    You need to stop thinking the union cares about the workers. Union management cares about the same thing company management does, they just bullshit you into believing otherwise,, and this is why they don't exist in any meaningful form in right to work states. When they can't use strong arm tactics to prevent people from working if they aren't part of the union, they cease to exist. Get the picture? They aren't your friends, stop being so naive.

  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:24PM (#44094771) Homepage

    1. "how much the labor wanted for their jobs"
    The union was protesting wage cuts, not demanding wage increases. Management had already agreed to what their labor was worth, and then re-neged on that agreement.

    2. "The only real motivation for the management team to stay"
    How come management needs nice big bonuses in order to stay when labor is supposed to accept 25-30% wage cuts without complaint?

    3. Regardless of how large or small the change is, it certainly bad form. An equivalent scenario: Your sister tells you she's broke and the rent is due, and being a decent fellow you help her out. She gets your check, and then flies to Cancun for a week. 3 months later, she calls you again and says she's in a jam and needs your financial help. Are you as quick to support her the second time? How about the third time?

    And, as a sibling poster pointed out, this was also about robbing the entirety of the workers' pension fund.

  • by networkBoy (774728) on Monday June 24, 2013 @01:43PM (#44094971) Homepage Journal

    Yes, but the union also had in the contract that breads had to be shipped separately than cakes, thus you had to send two trucks to a store to stock it.

    It's not all the union's fault, and it's not all management's fault. They were both culpable.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Monday June 24, 2013 @02:52PM (#44095637) Homepage Journal

    In the unions' defense: both the teamsters and the bakers union had agreed to concessions previously, while executives were ignoring the consultant they hired to fix problems and instead used Hostess as their own personal piggy bank, pocketing everything that was saved by cutting benefits and pay. It wasn't until last year that the board finally grew wise and axed the executives and promoted the outside consultant, and they did seriously try to turn the company around. The CEO of the time did NOT draw bonuses after taking the company into chapter 7.

    The bakers union had cause (based on previous experience) to disbelieve the new boss ("meet the new boss, same as the old boss" is usually true) and think they were playing chicken when they threatened to board up the company. They weren't kidding, the new boss was seriously trying to turn things around and Hostess was not liquid enough to survive, so they recalled all the trucks the next morning, closed the factories, and that was that.

    Interesting tidbit: the Teamsters knew the score actually tried to coax the Bakers Union negotiators to agree, because the cut the last Hostess CEO requested was to be a temporary one, until (if) the company got back on track. The Bakers' Union ignored the Teamsters and decided it was another bluff. Unfortunately for Hostess employees, it was not a bluff. It was game over.

The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.

Working...