I guess whether management shrugged depended on whether they had the option to fire workers. If a labor contract was in force, then no. It is indeed comical that the union bosses thought the company could be sold and continue operations. What businessman in his right mind would buy an unprofitable company with ongoing labor strife? You don't see Democrat Warren Buffett riding in on a white horse to scoop up this company out of "fairness." Liberal or not, he knows how to read a balance sheet.

good points

Based on the title and many of the posts everyone seems to classify this company closing as a shrug. There is an implicit choice in the term shrug as it is used in the book. Galt and his friends chose to shrug. With Hostess, there was no choice. The changing market and culture of fitness weekened hostess. The labor burdens and of course the strike may have been the nails in the coffin. To be fair minded should we assume it was labors absolute fault? Don't we need to know more about how the company was run before we say that it must have been labor? I don't like collectivized labor anymore than the next objectivist but I really don't think there was a philosophical choice being made in this case.

The mediation talks have, as I suspected they would, failed between Hostess and the baker's union. Interestingly, the secretary/treasurer of the Teamsters Local 145 in Stratford, CT said, "The baker's union thought they were playing a game with them, [Hostess], and they guessed wrong,".."We were gainfully employed,".."We had benefits. Now we have nothing." The IBT had reached an agreement to slash wages, pension funding and health benefits, but the bakers union wouldn't budge. I wonder if they like having their cake and eating it, too?

Wonder Bread is about as good for you as GMO's are...Join IRT,PAN, OCA to make a real lasting difference.I work in the hospitality trade - if all chefs knew about GMO's & trans-fats, it would be a day to celebrate..

It's sad that a union which represents only about 30% of the employees can put all of the employees out of a job with their demands. Their demands included that the union (not the employees, the union) be given 25% ownership of the company. The government gave it to the UAW and now the precedent has been set.

I shrugged several years ago, I now have zero employees. I have kept the business open just treading water, but I am now leaning toward dissolving it. The rotters and looters will have nothing to eat but dirt if things continue they way they are.

It would be nice to be able to replace those people who lack in appreciation for the jobs they have with some of the millions who have been months trying to find one. How can this be done? It would save many people a whole lot of trouble.

True except for one thing: the rest of us will not be paying for their unemployment compensation.

Remember that UI (at the State level) is an insurance policy, not a welfare program. You draw from it according to what you have put in.

Only the Federal "Extended Benefits" aka EUC is welfare. And it goes away at midnight on Jan. 1. None of Hostess' former employees will be on EUC before then.

Uh, no.

Lots of businesses are cutting back because of Obamacare, but Hostess isn't one of them. Remember that Hostess was a union shop, which means that her employees had the "gold-plated Cadillac" health-care plans that are not affected by Obamacare's regulations.

Come on folks, let's stay honest here. There is plenty of evil in Obamacare to go around; there is no need to blame it for things it didn't do.

The, patents, trademarks and recipes are the value that can be sold. The employees, and their suicidal union masters, are just a liability that will be left up to the rest of us to continue paying for (in their unemployment compensation, medicaid, etc). But, if it's anything like General Motors, the current regime will award the patents, trademarks and recipes to the Unions as "compensation" for their "lost investment". Right.

Yeah, I'm laughing too... for now.

I'm reminded of King Crimson's song "Epitaph"...
the part about laughing and crying... gonna go listen to that now.

Thanks for pointing that out, WWJGD. I thought the same thing when I heard they had to go to a federal judge to seek permission to close and liquidate their assets. I forgot that they had already filed bankruptcy and did not make the connection.

I wasn't laughing and I'm aware of where this is all headed. (Okay, maybe I was laughing a little bit cuz laughing's my favorite, but I still know it's serious shit.) And sometimes stupidity IS laughable, C'mon!

They do seem to believe that money is stored in some vault someplace and all the evil company owners will take it with them to their next company. They don't understand the idea that money is..................MADE though productivity. If productivity does not happen, then there is no reason to have a business.

Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know. I think this is why so many of the characters in Rand's "fiction" piece just disappeared. Simply ceasing to feed the beast IS the statement. Or, to put it succinctly: Actions speak louder than words.

And where did I read yesterday that the Unions said that they were laying off the workers just so they could keep all the profits? Really? We get rich by CLOSING factories and SHUTTING DOWN operations? It wasn't so much the fact that he said it that shocked me, is that 50.5% of Americans aren't educated enough to know why it's absurd.

Laugh it up... while you can.

Because you KNOW where all this is going, don't you?

That's right: Directive 10-289. You know it's coming.

Maybe Obama will swoop in and bail them out on the tax payers dime....and then change the name to Taxinkies! Mmmmm Yum.

I wouldn't expect Hostess to say the word "Shrugged". they'd be made a mockery of and the MS media would have a hay day twisting that all over the place. Better to exit gracefully and get out without all the riff raff crap. For those who can recognize a (union) shrug when they see it, will.

I wouldn't want to waste my time fighting to keep a business open if it's just too much a pain in the ass, and the profit wasn't there. Yet the striking workers expected such a thing.

Well, yeah, they've been in Chapter 11 for nearly a year now.

Once you file, the Bankruptcy Court is in charge of these things. It's not wrong, it's the way bankruptcy works. Basically to protect the creditors' rights from "someone" running off with the assets.

I just read that Hostess had to ask permission from the gov't to shut down and sell its assets. Even in failure, the gov't is in control! There's something very wrong with that.

I'm viewing Hostess more like Twentieth Century Motors... giving to employees more than they really could until it is too late. An absurdity I heard reported was striking employees continuing to "strike", hoping another company will swoop in and pick up where Hostess left off. I could understand an entrepreneur coming in & buying discounted equipment and/or plants, but I would not see them wanting to hire the striking employees... at least not in wholesale. If I were to be the entrepreneur, I'd let potential employees know what I was willing to pay and they could take it or leave.