Twinkees Dead, Union Charged with Ho-Homicide..

[delldude]

No kid is forced to eat anything that the school provides. Send your kid to school with all the junk food you wish.

Try again.

Don't send him with a lunch and get back to me.

Its already happening across the country where they have outlawed bringing junk food in lunches.

Get a life.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Don't send him with a lunch and get back to me.

Its already happening across the country where they have outlawed bringing junk food in lunches.

Get a life.

Dell is correct sadly. We now have government usurping the role of parent.

I do so wish I had a 14 year old who was in perfect shape, Top grades, star on several athletic teams ultra low body fat, IOW a perfect physical specimen and send him/her to school everyday with Twinkies and such just so the school would do something so I could drag their everloving assets into court and strike down these Liberty robbing rules put in place by tyranical school boards across the land.

 

[FWAAA]

Hostess puts off liquidation, agrees to mediation

Very unusual for a bankruptcy judge to not grant a motion to liquidate. Management says that the strike has already cost it too much money to reopen; wonder if Judge Drain plans to find investors this week to help with the depleted operating capital?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/20/news/companies/hostess-mediation/

Company attorneys told Drain Monday that the strike had already cost it too much money to restart operations.

Experts say it is extremely rare for a bankruptcy judge to refuse to sign off on a company's motion to liquidate. Heidi Sorvino, a bankruptcy attorney at Hodgson Russ in New York, said companies typically have close to an absolute right to liquidate. And Drain is set to rule on the company's liquidation motion Wednesday morning if there isn't progress made in mediation Tuesday afternoon.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Very unusual for a bankruptcy judge to not grant a motion to liquidate. Management says that the strike has already cost it too much money to reopen; wonder if Judge Drain plans to find investors this week to help with the depleted operating capital?

http://money.cnn.com...tess-mediation/

I too found it a bit interesting as well. Perhaps the judge smelled a rat and felt that the company could be saved if he pushed the interested parties back to the bargaining table.

 

[777 fixer]

I don't see any deflecting, just points being made that you don't like !

AA- Bankrupcy
NW- Out of business
Hostess- Out of business
Boeing- Lay-offs
USPS- Broke

Don't let reality hit you in the face !

What are you rambling about?

AA-Ineptly run.
NWA-Not out of business, they merged with Delta.
Hostess-Just ask yourself this question. When was the last time you bought a Hostess product? There's you answer.
Boeing-They're getting ready to layoff people due to defense budget cuts. Unions have nothing to do with it so I really don't know why you bought it up. By the way, their commercial divsion is doing rather well.
USPS-You can thank the internet for a lot of the problems USPS is having. Or when members of congress keep USPS from closing Post Offices in their district's that could be merged with others.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

What are you rambling about?

AA-Ineptly run.
NWA-Not out of business, they merged with Delta.
Hostess-Just ask yourself this question. When was the last time you bought a Hostess product? There's you answer.
Boeing-They're getting ready to layoff people due to defense budget cuts. Unions have nothing to do with it so I really don't know why you bought it up. By the way, their commercial divsion is doing rather well.
USPS-You can thank the internet for a lot of the problems USPS is having. Or when members of congress keep USPS from closing Post Offices in their district's that could be merged with others.

Ask yourself this question. Why would Con Agra, Flowers Foods and El Grupo Bimbo want to buy Hostess?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ask yourself this question. Why would Con Agra, Flowers Foods and El Grupo Bimbo want to buy Hostess?

The answer is different for each suitor. What is similar is that the brands have value, the distribution network has value. Hostess as a going concern really doesn't for a variety of reasons.

 

[FWAAA]

Turns out that Hostess wasn't Bained by right-wing vulture capital, it was undone by some stupid-ass democrats:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/private-equity-and-hostess-stumbling-together/

Ripplewood, which was founded by Timothy C. Collins, a major Democratic donor, is expected to lose most, if not all, of the $130 million or so it invested in Hostess. The company’s lenders, led by Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital, are not expected to fare well either.

The behind-the-scenes tale of Hostess and Ripplewood may be the opposite of a project to buy it, strip it and flip it. When Mr. Collins originally looked at Hostess, he was trying to make investments in troubled companies with union workers. He was convinced that he could work with labor organizations to turn around iconic American businesses, and he hoped Hostess would become a model for similar deals.

Early on, Mr. Collins sought out Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader, who had become a consultant on labor issues, to help Ripplewood acquire Hostess and work with its unions. Mr. Collins had previously been a donor to Mr. Gephardt’s election campaigns, according to an article in Fortune magazine this year that described the relationship.

It was Mr. Collins’s relationship with Mr. Gephardt — a Democrat and longtime friend of labor — that helped make the deal happen in the first place.

While Ripplewood sought significant concessions from the unions in 2009, some insiders and outside analysts privately suggested that Ripplewood did not fight hard enough for even greater givebacks from the unions in the bankruptcy process — savings worth $110 million — perhaps as a function of Mr. Collins’s relationship with Mr. Gephardt. In addition, the company was saddled with $670 million in debt, which had jumped by about $200 million as part of the sale during bankruptcy.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Don't send him with a lunch and get back to me.

Its already happening across the country where they have outlawed bringing junk food in lunches.

I did find a link to a story where one Chicago school has banned some bag lunches from their school. So I stand corrected on that one.

"But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like."

I think it is a far cry from having a nationwide lunchbox police. I agree that a parent should have the right to feed their child whatever they see fit.

I have no problem with cafeterias with subsidized meals being governed by healthy food policy.

 

[southwind]

What are you rambling about?

AA-Ineptly run.
NWA-Not out of business, they merged with Delta.
Hostess-Just ask yourself this question. When was the last time you bought a Hostess product? There's you answer.
Boeing-They're getting ready to layoff people due to defense budget cuts. Unions have nothing to do with it so I really don't know why you bought it up. By the way, their commercial divsion is doing rather well.
USPS-You can thank the internet for a lot of the problems USPS is having. Or when members of congress keep USPS from closing Post Offices in their district's that could be merged with others.

1. It's always the company's fault !
2. NW mechanics................remember them by any chance ?
3. Boeing.............yeah, if the union had just kept their nose out of company business, those peeps getting laid off, might have been able to go to S.C. and work for, guess who.................. Boeing !
4. Hostess............have you gone down the snack aisle................looks like a booming industry to me !
5. USPS, called keeping up with the times, UPS and Fed Ex also have the internet !
#1 reason the USPS is broke:
"USPS owes $5.5 billion to fund future retirees' health benefits"

And since I believe the majority of USPS workers, probably voted for Barrack, I say wipe out that neg. $5.5 in health benefits out and tell 'em to purchase ObamaCare, on their dime !

 

[Ms Tree]

The biggest reason the USPS cannot compete is that they are not designed to compete. They have to deliver to all postal codes regardless of profitability. They do so 6 days a week. Go to Fed ex or UPS and mail a letter to where ever. Let me know how much they charge you.

 

[Kev3188]

#1 reason the USPS is broke:
"USPS owes $5.5 billion to fund future retirees' health benefits"

And since I believe the majority of USPS workers, probably voted for Barrack, I say wipe out that neg. $5.5 in health benefits out and tell 'em to purchase ObamaCare, on their dime !

...And I say you have no idea what you're talking about. Remind us all again which party pushed through needless legislation requiring the USPS to prefund it's pension (not "health") benefits for the next 75 years. Then, let us know how profitable they actually might've been without that anchor around their necks. Kthx.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I did find a link to a story where one Chicago school has banned some bag lunches from their school. So I stand corrected on that one.

"But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like."

I think it is a far cry from having a nationwide lunchbox police. I agree that a parent should have the right to feed their child whatever they see fit.

I have no problem with cafeterias with subsidized meals being governed by healthy food policy.

As long as you don't ban or dictate what kids eat. Now it you get the as my friend calls them "😛oor Peoples Lunch" you don't IMO have any right to question what's on the plate.

Yes it's a far cry from national lunch box policw but once Government get their tyranical claws into something it won't be long before we have lunch police.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

1. It's always the company's fault !
2. NW mechanics................remember them by any chance ?
3. Boeing.............yeah, if the union had just kept their nose out of company business, those peeps getting laid off, might have been able to go to S.C. and work for, guess who.................. Boeing !
4. Hostess............have you gone down the snack aisle................looks like a booming industry to me !
5. USPS, called keeping up with the times, UPS and Fed Ex also have the internet !
#1 reason the USPS is broke:
"USPS owes $5.5 billion to fund future retirees' health benefits"

And since I believe the majority of USPS workers, probably voted for Barrack, I say wipe out that neg. $5.5 in health benefits out and tell 'em to purchase ObamaCare, on their dime !

You are again Clueless as charged.

1) It is always the companies fault. They run the ...um... Company.

2) yes I do. I am one and voted with my feet for a better career.

3) No, they would not.

4) More the reason to justify that the company did not keep up with the times. Blame the union on loss of market share and poor product improvement? No.

5) Please crack a book or take a comminuty college course. There is not enough space here to fill you in on everything wrong with your USPS comparison.

 

[delldude]

I did find a link to a story where one Chicago school has banned some bag lunches from their school. So I stand corrected on that one.

"But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like."

I think it is a far cry from having a nationwide lunchbox police. I agree that a parent should have the right to feed their child whatever they see fit.

I have no problem with cafeterias with subsidized meals being governed by healthy food policy.

That kid in N Carolina was the first. Its happened around the states but gets real bad publicity. Regarding NC, they stated that home brought food is required to meet USDA food requirements and NC state law goes along with that. Being they see it that way I'd bet many other states do too.
This BS of inspecting a kids lunch, I don't care if its all Twinkies.....they are going too far.

And it is big government steeping over the line.
They know better.