It's surprising that the union would actually let the company fall apart. Was there some lapse in communication? Did the unions think the company was bluffing when they said "we're going to go bankrupt"?
Also, their downfall probably had more to do with a change in social perception that they couldn't do anything about. Everyone knows that Twinkies are "bad for you". It's almost stereotypical for a fat person to be eating Twinkies, and this makes everyone want to avoid them.
Agreed. When I was growing up, I ate a LOT of these snack foods and regularly had twinkies in my bag lunch I brought to school.
Nowadays, there's a much better emphasis on nutrition and making sure kids avoid getting obese.
Back in 2005, the same thing happened to Krispy Kreme. They flooded our city with stores, but within a few years, they were all gone. There were a victim of the health food craze taking off.
As much as I hate to see them go, it's a good sign.
This is what is supposed to happen when a company can not perform efficiently with the resources it has. I realize the strike killed this company, but it was severely wounded and bleeding already. No guarantee it would have survived much longer, strike or no strike.
In these situations, it is good for the company to fold. Sell off it's assets and let another business that can make better use of these resources do so.
If a company is squandering resources, that is a drag on the economy. Much better to let someone new withe better ideas and better execution come into play. Bankruptcy and Liquidation lets this happen. It's a good thing.
If a company can pick up these resources and use them more efficiently, they will hire people. And maybe all the things that Hostess fell short on with the union contract will not be a problem for a company that can execute efficiently.
While that is certainly not the only possible outcome, I think it is a likely one.
That's why your analogy doesn't really work.
I said "craze" because the anti-carb mood is somewhat of a fad, so I think the word "craze" is perfectly suited.
(Twinkies are gross.)
My anecdotal experience says otherwise ;)
I believe the strike was "the straw that broke the camel's back", although a strike carries more weight than the proverbial straw, it certainly is not the sole thing to blame.
But it is a factor, and a helluva big one. If the company you work for is in dire straits, and you want to recover and for you to keep your job, striking is probably not a wise choice.
The name brands may well survive, like the pets.com dog did, but it will be at other companies.
EDIT: as child comments point out, they were in re-org and have now collapsed into liquidation
This sounds to me like a game of brinksmanship in which neither side blinked.