I'm honestly a little miffed at the Baker's union for creating a new weapon to use against labor unions in the future. This isn't going to make unions any more favorable in the eyes of the public, which is going to enable legislators to erode more and more of the rights that employees have to form them and leverage their control.
They also managed to effectively screw the other 70% of the company that was dependent on Hostess for employment, not to mention that the pensions - the entire reason they went on strike in the first place - are now gone for everybody. It's just not a winning equation. It sends a message to businesses that unions have the power to drive them out of business, but in the capitalist friendly government of today and the easily manipulated voting public, I don't see this doing any good for the average union member. Instead, it's going to intensify lobbying by businesses who are trying to outlaw the union once and for all.
If anything, it's just going to encourage people to not sign on with the unions in R2W states, further defanging union workforces. This is a loss across the board for workers, and the executives at Hostess are going to get to just pocket everything. don't have to pay out pensions, don't have to worry about sagging profits, but they sure as fuck are going to make a fortune out of selling off their brands.
And now, the next plant that makes Twinkies is probably going to be doing it at a minimum wage factory in the right to work heartland.