Make No Mistake About It, The Union Killed Hostess

121119015303-hostess-union-strike-story-top

A federal judge has ordered Hostess and the union into mediation, chastising the union for not taking that step before going on strike, but it seems unlikely that any fruitful concessions will come from it. Those beginning to hoard Hostess products like Twinkies, though, are misguided. The well-known Hostess brands will most assuredly be sold off to other companies who will continue to produce them (though they’ll likely end up being produced outside the country).

But whatever else happens between Hostess and the union beyond this point, let’s be clear that it was the union (and more specifically the absurd work rules and compensation packages the union foisted upon Hostess) that brought the company to this point.

As Thomas Sowell notes, the union killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Many people think of labor unions as organizations to benefit workers, and think of employers who are opposed to unions as just people who don’t want to pay their employees more money. But some employers have made it a point to pay their employees more than the union wages, just to keep them from joining a union.

Why would they do that, if it is just a question of not wanting to pay union wages? The Twinkies bankruptcy is a classic example of costs created by labor unions that are not confined to paychecks.

The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions’ members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Unions are, and should be, a part of our labor markets. Workers have every right to form their associations and negotiate contracts through those associations for their labor. The problem is that, under American law, businesses are all but locked into a suicide pact with the unions. Whereas in every other sort of contractual transaction, if one part or the other is dissatisfied they can walk away at the end of the contract. But not so with labor. Under American law, employees can get rid of a union through a petition and vote process regulated by the National Labor Relations Board. But if an employer no longer wants to sign contracts with a union their only choice is to lock the union out indefinitely, something that is subject to the scrutiny of the NLRB and potentially the courts. And even if the lockout withstands that scrutiny, it never really ends.

The reason why companies like Hostess allow themselves to be entrapped in such absurd labor contracts is because often, in the short term, those contracts are less hassle than being rid of the union itself.

That needs to end. Employers must have the same right to walk away from a union as employees have.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • mikemc1970

    Unions suck, like cancer. Anyone that has ever had to hire anyone that worked for a union or has had to work with one knows this.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      It’s not like you ever let facts get in the way of your misinformation campaigns.

      [Union] members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a
      300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at
      least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay
      raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to
      $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to
      $656,256.

      http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191242/hostess-execs-give-each-other-300-raises-before-declaring-bankruptcy-blaming-unions/

      • awfulorv

        Sort of like the 300% raise the latter day Clara Barton, Michelle Obama, received from that Chicago hospital in gratitude for the Millions that were funneled to them through the auspices of then Sen. Barack Obama.

  • Scott H

    We do not need tariffs, what we need to do is send Unions to China –
    BAM problem solved as the cost of production would skyrocket. I guess
    Unions, Union leaders & Union members are not worthless

  • Guest

    If its really the union’s greed that killed twinkies, Hostess can lock them out and proceed like American Crystal. Or it might be that people really don’t want to take a 30% pay and benefit cut after giving substantial concessions during the company’s first bankruptcy. Your worry that the NLRB will strike it down is absurd, as it will only strike it down if the union can show the mal-intent to avoid collective bargaining. “A lockout seems to be available in every possible form… So long as a lockout is found lacking in that nefarious characteristic, under current law the Supreme Court and the NLRB will deem [the lock-out] legal.” https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume5/issue2/Alcaro5U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.335(2003).pdf

    • America

      As usual, you lie. It wasn’t a 30% pay cut, you moron, it was a TEMPORARY 8% cut. But don’t let the truth get in the way of you trying to beg for the attention that you crave and need.

      “There was an 8 percent decrease in the pay but it was going to come back
      into their paychecks over the next five years,” Farmer said. “So, it wasn’t
      going to completely go away.”

      http://www.koaa.com/news/hostess-employee-pay-cut-was-temporary/

      • Guest

        Way to cherry pick, shithead.

        “The contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut.” (on top of their substantial concessions from the first bankruptcy, mind you)
        http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/12/3913087/hostess-workers-honor-picket-line.html#storylink=cpy

        If the union’s giving up such a great deal, Hostess should have no problem recruiting new workers.

        • America

          Well, sh*t eater, would you take a temporary 8% pay cut rather than unemployment? RE: Benefits, you get obamacare…LOL!
          BTW…

          Salaries for the heads of the Baker’s Union:
          FRANK HURT PRESIDENT $262,654.00
          DAVID DURKEE SECRETARY-TREAS $244,396.00
          JOSEPH THIBODEAU EXEC VP $218,989.00

          • azulu

            It’s not just a temporary 8% cut if you’d bothered to exercise your reading skills rather than ignore the facts. “The contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut. “http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/12/3913087/hostess-workers-honor-picket-line.html#storylink=cpy

            A temporary 8% cut isn’t the proposal. Do you really think the union is so unreasonable that it’d rather lose thousands of jobs rather than take a temporary 8% cut? You might be that much of a stupid shithead, but that doesn’t mean everyone is.

            So to recap:

            My lies: 0 (maybe one, depending on the fecal matter composition of your head, but your meritless posts suggest a sufficient percentage to justify the claim)

            Your lies: 1 (Claiming it was only a temporary 8% cut when it was 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut. There are pieces of sh*t like you in my toilet, so I won’t hold your name calling about my diet against you)

          • Guest

            If you’d bothered to exercise your reading skills, you would’ve seen that a temporary 8% cut was not the proposal. “The contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut” (on top of their substantial concessions from the first bankruptcy).

            A temporary 8% cut was not the proposal. Do you really think the union is so unreasonable it would rather lose thousands of jobs rather than take a temporary pay cut? You might be that much of stupid sh*thead, but that doesn’t mean everybody is.

          • America

            “The contract would cut wages and benefits by 27 to 32 percent, including an immediate 8 percent wage cut”

            So….it was 8%. Thanks for confirming my statement.

          • Guest

            Thank you for ignoring the rest of that sentence (cutting wages and benefits by 27 – 32 percent) to confirm the accusations regarding the fecal matter composition of your head.

          • America

            Who said I ignored it? You confirmed my statement that there was a temporary 8% wage cut…thanks.

          • Guest

            And also confirmed the fact my initial statement that it will cut wages and benefits by 27-32% as well, which you accused me of lying about

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            This dude is mikemc1970. He’s a coward and a sockpuppet, albeit a dumb one.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Well done, goal post mover. You’re still a gullible dumbass. Enjoy your shoe. Tastes like shit, eh?

        • Neiman

          So it is much better to have no jobs at all than negotiate reductions in wages and benefits to keep the company alive?

          Where is Obama the Great, wouldn’t you think he would direct someone in the Executive Branch to get with these people and plead for a deal rather than our nation lose all those jobs? Or, does he really, in his heart, want the economy to fail?

          • Guest

            That’s a strawman argument. They did negotiate but couldn’t come to an agreement. To take it to an extreme, what if your employer, after negotiations, could offer its employees only $.25/hour to do your job? Would you leave that job and possibly let the company fail or negotiate reductions in wages and benefits to keep the company alive?

            You’re comment about Obama is absurd. Conservatives mocked him for saving the auto industry, and now you mock him for not taking action to save a much smaller company. Not taking an action to save one small company means he wants the economy to fail. Where was Bush when Leiman Brothers collapsed? Or, did he really, in his heart, want the economy to fail as well?

          • Neiman

            So, you are saying it is better to be out of work and on the public dole rather than accept a cut in wages/benefits. Well there are always food stamps from the food stamp president.

            As to your question, it is unfair because in my generation we took the work we could get, often barely enough to feed the family one small meal a day. My family had to pick crops, live in tents or in our car near the orchards, just to stay alive. We appreciated work at any wages, and worked hard to keep our jobs. On my job, I recently had a $400,00 decrease in my monthly base pay starting this year and I had no big savings to keep living at my current lifestyle. We will have a very minimal Christmas, if any at all and I am happy every day I do work and earn money.

            We criticized bailing out the auto industry and giving it to the unions, but I only suggested a low level functionary go and try to help broker a deal. Hardly the same thing.

          • Guest

            I’m saying that the free-market should allow the workers to walk away if they think they’re getting a raw deal and allows the company to hire others if they are offering reasonable wages. No sane person will quit there job if they think there’s nothing else out there since food stamps and unemployment benefits are an effective guaranty of subsistence poverty. That’s great if your family worked hard to keep your job, but people can quit there job if they think their services are being under valued and are not obligated to accept a lower wage just to help a company get out of red. If your so upset about the public having to give charity to the unemployed, why is it okay for workers to have to sacrifice to save the company?

            The auto bailout did not give the industry to unions. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/27/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-gave-away-car-companies-uni/

          • Neiman

            1. Yes, it allows them to walk away, but if they do they should not suck off the federal tit.
            2. There are what, 18000 people out of work, when they could be working and from there be looking for another job. Just being stubborn and out of work, knowing someone else will pick up the check is selfish.
            3. Workers should be responsible to their families and work for a living, while looking for a better job is okay.

          • Guest

            I don’t believe the Hostess employees will necessarily be afforded unemployment benefits. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/mediation-rules-complicated-striking-bakery-workers-lives_2012-11-19.html

          • Neiman

            Don’t worry, there are lots of government slop troughs for them to stick their wick in and sit back for a few months.

          • Guest

            Yes, that’s much worse than the workers sacrificing for the company it’s management had driven into the ground, raided their pension, and whose debt was so large it would likely be in bankruptcy again that in a few months even if they agreed to the deal. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/hostess-and-bakers-union-agree-to-mediation/

          • mike tyson

            I agree. I would be a scab in a second. But then again i would pay for a union member to attack me.

          • mike tyson

            So go to Walmart and buy a bunch of China garbage . That should help.

          • guest

            Save the auto industry??…Braaahahahaha!!!

            “The bailout of General Motors has been an
            utter disaster. As Creighton University economist Ernie Goss points
            out:

            Emerging
            from bankruptcy in November 2010, GM stock was initially sold to
            investors (Initial Public Offer) at a price of $35. Today the
            stock closed at a price of $24.60. Thus at this point in
            time, the
            U.S. taxpayer has sustained a loss of $18 billion. During this period
            that GM stock dropped by 36 percent, the overall stock market expanded
            by 18 percent. So not only is the federal government investing public
            money in private businesses, it is doing it poorly. GM shares have
            fallen to less than half the $53 price that the government needs to
            break even. Much of GM’s
            difficulties can be traced to federal meddling and requiring GM to produce vehicles that Americans have shunned. For example
            since
            it went on sale, the GM hybrid, the Volt, at a sales price of $41,000
            and a U.S. federal tax credit of $7,500, has cost U.S. citizens $250,000
            for each unit sold according to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
            Thankfully GM suspended
            produc-tion of the Volt in March 2012. For
            the sake of GM and the U.S. taxpayer, the U.S. Treasury should sell its
            stake in GM and “get out of the way.”
            The auto bailouts were
            great…if you’re an auto industry executive or a member of the United
            Autoworkers Union. For the taxpayers and the economy, it’s been a
            failure.

          • Guest

            Oh, I’m sorry, did the auto-industry die? I thought it was still there.

            I thought GM just posted more than a billion of dollars in earnings last quarter. http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/company/investors/earning-releases.content_pages_news_emergency_news_1031_q3_earnings.~content~gmcom~home~company~investors~earning-releases.html

            I thought auto plants were operating at capacity. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/auto-plants-at-capacity-buoying-all-parts-of-u-s-economy-cars.html

            I though a large share of the TARP money had been paid pack. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/romney-wrong-on-deficits-auto-bailout/

            I thought the bailout saved 1.5 million jobs. http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

          • guest

            I didn’t say it died, I said the tax payers got screwed, and will continue to get screwed since GM?GMAC still owes the tax payers about $40 billion.

          • mike tyson

            Everything you said is true. The Republiscumbags hate any business in America that is making it. They want all businesses to be paying workers 2 dollar’s an hour. To match there pay scales in China.

          • mike tyson

            Another lie by an idiot Republicon. How everything looking from the outside . How you taking the stomping Obama gave Romney. Not very good i see. hahahahahahahaha

          • mike tyson

            Republicans are stupid. That is why they are on the outside looking in. And that is where they will be for the next 20years. WATCH

    • sbark

      Problem with the unions wages is that they are 34% over the ave. industry scale of approx 12.50/yr………..and even after the 3 yr “cut”……..they wouldve still been 24% over the industry standard
      The Union killed Hostess………Hostess Shrugged, said the H$ll with it….
      The only thing that has kept Hostess alive and able to carry the yoke of the Union and the debt its forced Hostess to accumulate is Bernake artifically low int. rates

      • Guest

        Sorry, I tried looking into this but couldn’t find any credible source to confirm or deny those numbers about what the employees were making besides blog posts and comments in forums. If it’s true that Hostess was offering such awesome salaries though, it should have had no trouble recruiting other workers. Instead it decided to shut down.

        • sbark

          must not have tried just too hard, google is easy to use for those that actually want knowledge, not just propaganda fed to them
          They needed to recruit “other workers” years ago and break the union yoke that broke them. They didnt just go broke in Nov 2012, companies go broke by a slow bleeding process, just as GM slowly succumed to the Union wage demands and pension burden.
          The Left seems to think “going broke” is a 10 minute window in time, something that somehow happens overnight……

          • Guest

            Yeah I did use google for half an hour and couldn’t find anything. Funny that you couldn’t simply link to your numbers, probably cause you made them up or copied them off some non credible source.

          • sbark

            I just cant believe Huff PO, Media Matters, or even a White House Web site would’nt be informing you of both sides of the issues………I’m just shocked, shocked

          • Guest

            And I’m shocked, shocked, you’ve thus far completely failed to provide a credible source for your numbers.

          • Guest

            Didn’t realize GM was being bled death death. Seems to me then went from bankruptcy to earning billions and half dollars just last quarter. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/10/31/gm-general-motors-q3-earnings/1670015/

          • SigFan

            Except for that pesky little $40 billion they still owe the taxpayers for bailing out (paying off) the UAW. It’s easy to look like you’re making money when you don’t have to count your debts.

          • Guest

            They’re still making billions of dollars while meeting their union obligation. But hey, it’s easy to make a business look bad when you only look at it’s debts.

          • SigFan

            When a company that isn’t being protected by the government has more debt than income they go bankrupt. Which is exactly what GM should have done . And in that process the bondholders get paid first – not the Union as Obama did with GM. As long as they continue to owe the taxpayers billions of dollars and no one calls the marker though idiots can say GM is back, but the reality is they are no better off now than they were before the bailout.

          • mike tyson

            you want fries to go with your stupidity. Did you go to the same school as Romney. Loser school. hahahahah. Would you lose to a black guy from kenya. hahahah. If the black guy from Kenya won what does that say about Romney. hahahahahaha losers. yea i said it. loser. Go back to school and take a ethics class retard and a business class to. GM is booming. They are getting ready to hire 7000 workers where i live.

          • mike tyson

            Another stupid comment. 40 billion is peanuts to Gm now. Projections for sales next year. I was shocked. DON’T BUY CHINA MADE JUNK BY US COMPANY’S. US COMPANYS ARE MAKING GARBAGE IN CHINA AND GETTING PAYED FOR IT. I LAUGH OUT LOUD AT PEOPLE IN STORES BUYING CHINA JUNK

          • sbark

            You must be a Paul Krugman diciple huh….in other words unencumbered with economic litteracy…
            ……..“GM’s profit from April through June dropped to $1.5 billion,” reported the Knoxville New Sentinel, “$1 billion less than the same quarter a year earlier. It had a $361 million pretax loss in Europe and $19 million of red ink in South America. In North America, pretax profits fell nearly 13 percent to about $2 billion. International profits, including Asia, also dropped, by 3 percent to $557 million.”

            If I were the guys who falsely claimed in 2010 that GM repaid 100 percent of the loans the government gave them and then spent 2011 bragging about how the company made record profits on the strength of turning $100 billion in cash into $29 billion

            What idiot would buy GM stock after the hosing that the GM stockholders took when Obama wrote them off last time.

      • Guest

        duplicate post deleted

  • borborygmi

    Definitely sounds like unions padding the jobs. See this happen in my home town mill where if you want to change a freaking light bulb you have to put in a work order so an electrician can do it. There has to be give and take. That said owners signed the contract.

    • two_amber_lamps

      They did sign a contract… apparently the only way to “reset” the terms due to market change etc. is to shut down the factory.

      The union can quote the language of the contract all day, they can hold management and the board to the letter of the contract. They refuse to give some, ergo- no more jobs.

      Or should I say Bimbo (Mexican Bakery) gets to add another name to their list of holdings.

      But the contract says…. and the owners signed the contract.

      So the contract sends the jobs to Me-hee-co.

      That piece of paper sure has a lot of power, eh?

  • John

    Fairy tales Rob, you are getting desperate. Just curious Rob, how come you’re not including the fact that since being taken over by a private equity firm, Hostess has had 8, count’em, 8 CEOs in 6 years, none of which had ANY experience in the bakery or food manufacuring industries. Quit blaming the unions for mismanagement.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Really? It’s a fairy tale that unions implemented these absurd work rules?

      I think the desperation is the unions trying to blame this on executives, and executive pay, rather than reality of spiraling labor costs due to stupid labor contracts.

      This happens over and over again. There’s nothing new here.

    • sbark

      The USA is now going to have a POTUS for 8 yrs who had zero experience in anything except being a comm. organizer………look where the USA is at, and is headed
      Quit blaming producers for Obama’s ineptitude…….

      • $8194357

        Communist social justice organizer to be precise, sbark..

        • mike tyson

          Republicons got there as handed to them. What a burn. America said get the f out. More and more people are not buying China full term baby killer products anymore. Americans are getting on board to boycott China. American businesses over there are starting to feel it to. There exports are falling . PEOPLE DO YOUR HOMEWORK. IF YOU NEED A PRODUCT DONT BUY IT FROM A US COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN CHINA. IF NO OTHER COUNTRY IS PRODUCING IT BY IT FROM A CHINA COMPANY OVER A US COMPANY. THEY ARE COPYING THE AMERICAN PATENTS . DON’T LET THE US COMPANY GET THE MONEY. My business spends 50 thousand a year on products and i do not do business with companys that out source. I will always reward the china chain gang. over an American traitor company

          • $8194357

            Happy Thanksgiving Mark…

      • mike tyson

        4 years of crying. I love it. Republicons are on there way out for good. Get use to it cry baby. wa wa wa

        • sbark

          The ave. joe sheeple dem’cats think its just a game, all the while the radical left in control has been waging a litteral war on the USA as a society for decades……..
          yup I’m a cryin’…….things that cant go on forever……wont—16.5 trillion and counting.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      S M A C K ! !

      • mike tyson

        Yea that’s what we said when Obama handed Romney his as. It was funny. And now Republicons are crying hard. Every comment by those idiots is proof they are jealous of the Kenyan. It’s pretty bad when you get whooped by a uneducated black kenyan. What does that say about Romney’s collage transcripts. He got whooped bad. Where did he go to school that he can’t even keep up with a black guy from kenya. K-mart blue light special . hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Davo

    Nah, people just got less interested in eating Twinkies and Wonder Bread, and Hostess never adapted.

  • Camburn

    About 1/4 of the true story in this op-ed piece. Look at the previous filings, and you will note that Wonderbread owed a huge amount in past pension payments. They had also already received a large reduction in payroll via lower wages.
    While the workers were getting less, the CEO etc received bonuses.
    Not a well run company and it bit the dust.

    • Guest

      If you’re looking for objective insight, you’ve come to the wrong website.

    • sbark

      Isnt this the same view as the tax the rich arguement from the left……..There are not enough of them to make a hill of beans difference. Its the same old straw man diversion of the Left…
      18000 employees X40 hr week X 50 weeks X 3.00 cut = 108 million
      vrs
      CEO Bonus levels
      Its also the reason why the Lefts historical target is the vast middle class, its where the numbers are combined with some level of net worth. Its already started with the 2500 increase in health care via ObamaCare, the drop in net worth with the Fannie Mae Clinton housing crisis, and the 4500 drop in medium income as a result of ObamaVille economics.
      …..but hey blame it on the small business producers……….not even the generational hoarding super rich ala the Kennedy’s nor the Rockerfellors

  • RCND
  • Thresherman

    Our liberal unionite friends won’t care much for what I’m about to say because it is their opinion that companies only exist to provide a big tit for unions to suck on. Anything that causes that tit to run dry is the fault of management and not the greedy tit suckers.
    Now let’s look at Hostess. They are a company that makes low cost baked goods marketed on a national scale. The term low cost is key here. What needs to be understood is that there is a market for a Twinkie at 2 dollars and under but not at five. For a long time Hostess was able to market their product in that price range and pay union wages and benefits by improving manufacturing methods to offset increased labor costs. OK, well and good so far. Well except until we got Obama for President. Manufacturing costs are one thing but in the case of Hostess distribution cost them huge amounts of money. You see, baked goods are light and very bulky so it costs a butt load to ship them and in the case of Hostess, shipping is a big percentage of the overall expense of its products. Now with Obama’s war on oil and fossil fuels in general, the cost of diesel has nearly tripled the cost of shipping and Hostess is caught with a product that has an economic price cap and a skyrocketing shipping expenses. So I hate to break it to the servile lackeys who bray the liberal anti capitalist talking points, but that is the real reason Hostess has had so many CEOs. See, at the end of the day after all the corporate games were played out, none of them could figure out a way to meet union demands, find a way to offset the new massive shipping costs and still put a Twinkie on the store shelf at a price people will pay for it. In the end it was Obama and not venture capitalists or any other liberal bugaboo who put the final nail in the coffin of Hostesses.

    • sbark

      In a nutshell…….Business exists to make a profit, be they Corptns, or private ownership…they exist to make a profit.
      they dont exist to be a conduit for healthcare, or tax collection or really even employers if they can make a profit without them they will
      This is a foreign concept to the Left, and they are ingraining it into Gen X

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      What’s the price of gas the Mexicans will pay? LOL.

      [Union] members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file
      for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a
      300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at
      least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay
      raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to
      $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to
      $656,256.

      http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/191242/hostess-execs-give-each-other-300-raises-before-declaring-bankruptcy-blaming-unions/

    • mike tyson

      We are all dumber having read your uneducated post. The cost of diesel was high under chimp and Cheney. And all you did is bring your hate for Obama into this arguement. Have you ever thought about going back and getting your GED. Idiot.

  • banjo kid

    Let it go out , I do not eat Twinkies and am sure the world will find something better to satisfy their sweet tooth. The Unions went to far and are still trying to get more, when is enough enough ? Not so sure the employees will find commensurate wages with another job. They have cut off the nose to spite the face .

Top