In response to:

Hostess Bankruptcy: What Role Did Policy Play?

Milt37 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:44 PM
jerome, I have little sympathy for the workers. They should have stood up against the union bosses, but they wanted all the "freebies" the union convinced them they'd get, if they held fast. Several years ago, there a months long grocery store strike in Southern CA and I crossed the picket lines to shop at the stores that hired 'scabs' to fill in for the union. A couple times, I was stopped by picketers trying to intimidate me. I told them I hated union bosses, and the fact they were standing in picket lines for a measly $3/month for their healthcare. I almost started a riot a couple times, but I always asked them if while they were out work, whether the union bosses had given up their mansions and Mercedes'. That usually shut them up.

The demise of Hostess and Twinkies is not a national emergency, but it is certainly sad when a major business goes under and thousands of people lose their jobs.

If federal and state policymakers want to play a useful role here, they should study why Hostess couldn’t make a go of it. Were there tax or regulatory factors that stood in the way of the company earning a decent rate of return?

Unions were an important factor that pushed up the firm’s costs and reduced its operational efficiency. The policy reform here is obvious for people who appreciate market economics: repeal America’s coercive union laws. If policymakers don’t...