Twinkie CEO Rayburn Explains Closure

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
19,276
8,041
940
I made the decision to liquidate Hostess last night (Nov. 15). A number of factors have contributed to this. Hostess is 93 percent unionized, and it’s been formed by a number of acquisitions over the decades; a lot of old rules were just grandfathered into contracts from companies that no longer exist. There were all these crazy work rules, like one driver can only drive cake and the other can only drive bread. Hostess went through bankruptcy in 2004 and not enough work was done in that filing to deal with these issues.
I hear that the push toward healthier food is what did us in, but that hasn’t affected us at all. Why do you have chocolate companies? How do you explain doughnut shops when doughnuts haven’t changed in 100 years? We were north of $2 billion a year in sales. They weren’t the problem, our cost structure was.
I came on board at Hostess in February, and I was stunned by how little had been accomplished. We managed to make a deal with the Teamsters but the bakers didn’t support what they’d agreed to. I told them that if there’s going to be a strike over the negotiations, we won’t be able to withstand it and we have to liquidate. But I don’t think they believed us. We had 36 Hostess plants when the strike started two weeks ago, but we immediately closed three, so we only had 33 left. Bakers were crossing the picket line in some numbers but not enough to keep things going. Last night I got the update: 11 plants still weren’t operating. After that I communicated with my board and made the decision. That was a difficult call to make. I had people on that call who’d been working 20 hours a day at these plants, trying to make enough product to keep them on the shelves.
I look at this as a failure. I’ve spent a lot of time wondering why we didn’t make more progress. I’m a turnaround guy, I’m a pretty optimistic guy. I don’t think this was the inevitable end. We had a shot at surviving, but we couldn’t overcome the strike. We have potential buyers for our brands and we’ll contact them, but I haven’t even thought about that yet. We sent everyone home from the plants. That’s 18,500 people out of work.
 
Who wrote this?

Link?

Did you copy/paste it or write it yourself? (Yes, I know the answer to that.)

Are you saying you are the Hostess CEO?

If so, shame on you for not taking full responsibility.

Please post a link to this self-serving pile of shit and quit whining. The US is very invested in obesity and diabetics. Somehow, the idiots will find a way to get their daily fix of shitty sugar crap from your factories.
 
Funny...he doesn't mention the mismanagement, the failure to keep pace with consumer demand (junk food doesn't sell as well as it used to) nor how the private equity vultures loaded his company up with $50 million in debt after the first bankruptcy.

Naw...it's just them nasty ol' unions.
 
Teamsters are the problem.

Actually, the Teamsters knuckled under. It was the Bakers that were holding out... probably because they got screwed by the five of six seven-figure suits that preceeded this asshole.

The real problem was that the Hedge Fund practiced the Bain Model of looting a company. They put the company so far in debt to pay off investors that there was no money left for operations.

fb_hostess_debt_imagelarge.png
 
Did the Twinkie fucker explain the ridiculous bonuses and salary increases he gave his top execs? No, of course not...he blamed it on labor. Fuck you, you fucking fucks.
 
Who else gets a different picture when they see "Twinkie CEO" in the thread title?

$TutuBeard.jpg

Not that there's anything wrong with that, this post for entertainment purposes only.
 
Yeah..

It had nothing to do with the fact that they kept selling junk food to a culture that was moving away from it.

Market demand, something, something.. Profit.. Etc.
 
Funny...he doesn't mention the mismanagement, the failure to keep pace with consumer demand (junk food doesn't sell as well as it used to) nor how the private equity vultures loaded his company up with $50 million in debt after the first bankruptcy.

Naw...it's just them nasty ol' unions.

The Union had some bizarre Kosher rules where you can't mix bread with cupcakes, amiright?

Clearly, the Union leadership claimed another American icon.

Well done, Komrades.

Well done
 
Teamsters are the problem.

Actually, the Teamsters knuckled under. It was the Bakers that were holding out... probably because they got screwed by the five of six seven-figure suits that preceeded this asshole.

The real problem was that the Hedge Fund practiced the Bain Model of looting a company. They put the company so far in debt to pay off investors that there was no money left for operations.

fb_hostess_debt_imagelarge.png

But it stimulates the economy when the government is 16 Trillion in debt, amiright?
 
Yeah..

It had nothing to do with the fact that they kept selling junk food to a culture that was moving away from it.

Market demand, something, something.. Profit.. Etc.

"There were all these crazy work rules, like one driver can only drive cake and the other can only drive bread. Hostess went through bankruptcy in 2004 and not enough work was done in that filing to deal with these issues.
I hear that the push toward healthier food is what did us in, but that hasn’t affected us at all. Why do you have chocolate companies? How do you explain doughnut shops when doughnuts haven’t changed in 100 years? We were north of $2 billion a year in sales. They weren’t the problem, our cost structure was..."

Also you might want to Google "Richard Gephardt + Hostess"
 
Union leadership throws 15,000 people onto unemployment...maybe they can work at Krispie Kream
 
Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons. The first was Ripplewood's equity infusion of $130 million in return for control of the company (it currently owns about two-thirds of the equity). The second reason: substantial concessions by the two big unions. Annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million; thousands of union members lost their jobs. The third reason: Lenders agreed to stay in the game rather than drive Hostess into liquidation and take whatever pieces were left. The key lenders were Silver Point and Monarch. Both are hedge funds that specialize in investing in distressed companies -- whether you call them saviors or vultures depends on whether you're getting fed or getting eaten.
~
Management promised to turn around the company's fortunes through innovation and workplace efficiency. It tried a limited-edition return of original banana-cream Twinkies and published The Twinkies Cookbook, which included such half-baked epicurean delights as Twinkie Sushi and Pigs in a Twinkie. But ancient delivery trucks and plant equipment didn't get replaced. The company's pricing often didn't keep pace with that of competitors. And Hostess still had ludicrous work rules: The Teamsters had separate drivers for deliveries of such goodies as Yankee Doodles and Nature's Pride Nutty Oat. (Of course this jobs-preserving work rule was agreed to by Hostess in the last labor negotiation.)

Hostess is bankrupt … again - Fortune Management
 
Who wrote this?

Link?

Did you copy/paste it or write it yourself? (Yes, I know the answer to that.)

Are you saying you are the Hostess CEO?

If so, shame on you for not taking full responsibility.

Please post a link to this self-serving pile of shit and quit whining. The US is very invested in obesity and diabetics. Somehow, the idiots will find a way to get their daily fix of shitty sugar crap from your factories.
The idiot has spoken.
 
Ahh, yes, the twinkie will not be dead for long, investors will reopen the plants and those junk food junkies will have their fix again.
 
Yeah..

It had nothing to do with the fact that they kept selling junk food to a culture that was moving away from it.

Market demand, something, something.. Profit.. Etc.

"There were all these crazy work rules, like one driver can only drive cake and the other can only drive bread. Hostess went through bankruptcy in 2004 and not enough work was done in that filing to deal with these issues.
I hear that the push toward healthier food is what did us in, but that hasn’t affected us at all. Why do you have chocolate companies? How do you explain doughnut shops when doughnuts haven’t changed in 100 years? We were north of $2 billion a year in sales. They weren’t the problem, our cost structure was..."

Also you might want to Google "Richard Gephardt + Hostess"


Hmmm..

Considering their REVENUE was down 2.3% in 2011, I am assuming that is because they were selling negative amounts of twinkies?

Or maybe people weren't buying them at all.

#170 Hostess Brands - Forbes.com

To make a comparison to doughnut SHOPS is hilarious, that is a completely different demographic than convenience stores and grocery stores (where hostess was stocked).
 
Last edited:
So managment cannot compete in the free market ergo managment blames the unions for its past mismanagment

Typical of that class of losers.
 
It must be that bread can't take turns like cupcakes, so you need a different driver for each product.

Yeah, that has to be it

What else makes sense?
 

Forum List

Back
Top