Well, I listened to Rush today and he suggested "bailing out" the twinkies!! I laughed my ass off actually!! Seriously, I need more details on the Hostess deal before I decide what's right. So far, I know that the second union was the problem and convinced everyone else that an 8% cut in pay wasn't acceptable...even though Hostess offered a 25% ownership in the company.

Still, what's the stock worth? How much are the workers actually losing or gaining in this regard? Gotta have ALL the numbers, and, details before saying that the union is the whole problem and Hostess has no liability in the deal.

Until I get more insight, I'm neutral.

I looked around to see if I could find a stock quote for hostess and could not find any.
Did see an asset and liability sheet. Their liabilities look like they exceed assets by about 200 million.
Hostess look pretty much worthless.

Trumka has his panties in a wad over it.

Dolly Madison was gobbled up by Hostess.

There's another Zinger for ya.

Twinkies are the funny part. What isn't funny that the company wants to bankrupt the empolyees. There is a law that states if a company shuts down without prior notice they are breaking the law, mind you they have to have a certain number of employees. I noticed 15 years ago that companies would lay off workers and expected the remaining workers to pick up the slack. Workers are working more and receiving less pay. Maybe this will change the tide of things?   I'm proud of the workers of Hostess standing up to the company, and this is not the first time Hostess has done their employees in, there was a program on TV exposing Hostess awhile back, I don't remember the details, but I do remember the company didn't look good. Stopped me from buying their products.

@JezzVim,
You are very correct here. The trend has been to extract more out of workers, MORE RESPONSIBILITY, while still receiving the same pay. In some cases, they would also need to accommodate pay cuts, like here, and be expected to make it work. Yes, a cut in pay is better than no job at all, every time, and to have 18,000 workers paying in is good all the way around. But, all the variables haven't been disclosed in terms of why they went on strike from the start. Somewhere along the way, lots of people became very unhappy about something within the company.

As the old saying goes, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything".