ExiledInIllinois Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Going from 750 to 2.55 million. ? Huh ?
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Going from 750 to 2.55 million. ? Huh ? You keep focusing on 22 and 44. That's not the answer. The answer was he was trying to make money for the investors (which by law he is required to do), as well as save all 18,000 jobs. I am sure that flour pourer has the thought leadership to negotiate those deals with the money folks, deal with the unions and still operate the company. But no way a 2.25 million CEO probably can't pour flour. And what's justice is the fact that anyone who was on strike will not get unemployment benefits. HAHAHA, these guys may think they got it all figured out. They no longer have a job and now without thinking about it they get no unemployment. This is that whole concept of if you don't like your job, keep the one you got and look for another.
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 I am not talking about keeping Hostess afloat or saving the company... I am talking about keeping a family afloat (prior years the fat cats were collecting their bloated salary) for at least a year. Again, the fat cats can make 4 times as much... Which gives them incentive to not tank the company and live personally off the lion's share... 200k still doesn't mean they need to look for a job tomorrow... BUT they would have to soon. Heck, whole families are living off 50 and getting by. How can I be a communist... The CEO is working maybe double/triple the average work the normal workers work... YET, they are making 4 times the amount. A communist, I would think wants everybody equal. Talking Twinkies here... A dieing, unhealthy food choice. I still don't understand why you want to use 44 families as feed? I don't think the USDA would approve.
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 I still don't understand why you want to use 44 families as feed? I don't think the USDA would approve. Solient Green and Twinkies are people?
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 Solient Green and Twinkies are people? You need to ask EiI.
Nanker Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Yes. He's the guy who thinks MDs are money-grubbing whores who should just work in free clinics for a stipend. He thinks a CEO's "hourly rate" should be equal to that of a janitor. There's a poverty of spirit there.
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Were they tanking the company from the get go and covering their azz with a nice compensation package? Probably!
Nanker Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Probably! Of course. None of their executive team had the slightest interest in keeping the company going. They were as eager to hit the unemployment line as the union members were - no doubt. Why continue having a great paying job when you can pump the phone lines of the executive recruiters and look forward to uprooting your family to go live in Backass, IL or Sinkhole, MS? Stands to reason they wanted to give their employees and their employee's spouses and kids cancer and laugh all the way to the Cayman Islands.
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 The fact is these guys probably knew their sales, profit pargin, knew what it took to operate and said, here's what we can pay. The CEO probably put in double or triple the hours, with all of the thought leadership. Why should he take 200K when he likely could have gone somewhere else for 5 million? He was trying to save all 18,000 jobs, not just 44. The union doesn't understand profits, investors, etc... So they are gone with the employees. Good for them. That evil CEO is no longer making 2 million also. Reuters: Hostess' Entered "First Bankruptcy With $648.5 Million In Debt, And Came Out With More Than $800 Million." Reuters reported that after Hostess filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, "it did not deal with its debt": It tackled some issues -- closing bakeries and simplifying some union contracts -- but it did not deal with its debt. It went into the first bankruptcy with $648.5 million in debt, and came out with more than $800 million, according to court documents. [Reuters, 3/6/12] CNBC: After Bankruptcy Hostess' "Sales Declined And Attempts To Roll-Out New Products More In Line With Changing Consumer Tastes Flopped." CNBC reported that the first round of bankruptcy "wasn't enough to save" Hostess, adding: "The company's sales declined and attempts to roll-out new products more in line with changing consumer tastes flopped." [CNBC, 11/16/12] Wash. Post: January Bankruptcy Filing Shows Hostess "Would Have Lost Money Without Any Pension Costs At All." The Washington Post reported in January that Hostess "lost $250 million in the less than three years since it emerged from its previous bankruptcy. That means it would have lost money without any pension costs at all." The Post noted that Hostess "lost money in 30 of the past 37 quarters." [The Washington Post, 1/11/12] Sounds like they did a great job running the company! Must be nice to get a salary increase when the product line is considered stale, sales have completely, dropped and you have failed to deal with the companies other issues! The answer was he was trying to make money for the investors (which by law he is required to do), as well as save all 18,000 jobs. I am sure that flour pourer has the thought leadership to negotiate those deals with the money folks, deal with the unions and still operate the company. But no way a 2.25 million CEO probably can't pour flour. Reuters: Hostess' Entered "First Bankruptcy With $648.5 Million In Debt, And Came Out With More Than $800 Million." Reuters reported that after Hostess filed for its first bankruptcy in 2004, "it did not deal with its debt": It tackled some issues -- closing bakeries and simplifying some union contracts -- but it did not deal with its debt. It went into the first bankruptcy with $648.5 million in debt, and came out with more than $800 million, according to court documents. [Reuters, 3/6/12] Reuters: Hostess "Spent More Than $170 Million On Professional Fees" In Its First Bankruptcy. Reuters further reported that in its first bankruptcy, Hostess spent more than $170 million on professional fees:
Nanker Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Give it up S. Can. The union won the election. They're dealing with the results of their votes.
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 (edited) A lot of people lost their job and all you could come up with is that? I have no problem with private sector unions and they dug their own grave. Lets hope those toll Booth operators get what's coming to them. I'll never understand liberals. Four Americans die in Benghazi and it's "a joke of a story." Almost 19,000 lose their jobs and all they can do is crow about how they somehow stuck it to the man. I think there are too many people who don't see all the values of work. It would never dawn on me to give serious thought to sitting on my ass because unemployment paid a little better than my crappy job. I've had plenty of jobs where I earned crap dough while working for a douchebag. When I couldn't take it any more, I'd look for something else. Many times I packed up and moved. It appears many prefer to sit on your ass, do nothing, and then try to convince yourself that the people in charge were probably tanking the company so they could cash out. It takes a special kind of sit-on-your-ass taker to think that way. Edited November 17, 2012 by LABillzFan
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Of course. None of their executive team had the slightest interest in keeping the company going. They were as eager to hit the unemployment line as the union members were - no doubt. Why continue having a great paying job when you can pump the phone lines of the executive recruiters and look forward to uprooting your family to go live in Backass, IL or Sinkhole, MS? Declining sales, crippling debt from financial engineers and management's failure to freshen up a stale product line and keep up with consumers' changing tastes, bankruptcy twice in a decade, ect. Then I read this : The issue here is the corporation itself. The first clue that something is a bit odd at Hostess comes from the company's description of its chief financial officer, whom we are told: is responsible for driving the planned priorities of the finance organization in both the front and back office and regularly collaborates with the marketing, sales and operations departments. Resist the temptation to mock the consulting-firm-speak ("driving the planned priorities?"), and ask yourself what's missing. Don't C.F.O.'s normally work closely with the treasury departments, too? Turns out that Hostess has no treasury department. It apparently doesn't have anyone who can perform treasury functions at all. The company has asked the bankruptcy court for permission to hire FTI Consulting to do the work. Apparently Hostess does not have much of a finance department either, since FTI is also providing employees for that department. [The New York Times, Dealbook, 1/13/12] And all of these problems were the unions fault?
VABills Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Declining sales, crippling debt from financial engineers and management's failure to freshen up a stale product line and keep up with consumers' changing tastes, bankruptcy twice in a decade, ect. Then I read this : The issue here is the corporation itself. The first clue that something is a bit odd at Hostess comes from the company's description of its chief financial officer, whom we are told: is responsible for driving the planned priorities of the finance organization in both the front and back office and regularly collaborates with the marketing, sales and operations departments. Resist the temptation to mock the consulting-firm-speak ("driving the planned priorities?"), and ask yourself what's missing. Don't C.F.O.'s normally work closely with the treasury departments, too? Turns out that Hostess has no treasury department. It apparently doesn't have anyone who can perform treasury functions at all. The company has asked the bankruptcy court for permission to hire FTI Consulting to do the work. Apparently Hostess does not have much of a finance department either, since FTI is also providing employees for that department. [The New York Times, Dealbook, 1/13/12] And all of these problems were the unions fault? Probably. They probably forced that no additional employees were laid off and therefore the coporation had no money to hire the required staff, just so a guy can pour flour for 50K a year. Priorities.
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 It appears many prefer to sit on your ass, do nothing, and then try to convince yourself that the people in charge were probably tanking the company so they could cash out. It takes a special kind of sit-on-your-ass taker to think that way. Dude do you know stupid you sound? There were many people that were employed at Hostess for 20, 30, & 40 years! They didn't just show up to work for the last few decades sit down in a chair on their ass for 8 hours a day and sleep! Hostess Had Stopped Contributing To Pensions And Wanted To Cut Worker Pay Further. According to The Kansas City Star, union leaders reported that Hostess had stopped contributing to workers' pensions and wanted to cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent": Union officials said the company stopped contributing to the workers' pensions last year, and 92 percent of union members voted to reject the contract in September. A bankruptcy court judge allowed the company to force the union to accept the new collective bargaining agreement. So management forced the cuts they wanted on the union, and they still went belly up? And you blame the workers??? Probably. They probably forced that no additional employees were laid off and therefore the coporation had no money to hire the required staff, just so a guy can pour flour for 50K a year. Priorities. Hostess Had Stopped Contributing To Pensions And Wanted To Cut Worker Pay Further. According to The Kansas City Star, union leaders reported that Hostess had stopped contributing to workers' pensions and wanted to cut wages and benefits "by 27 to 32 percent": Union officials said the company stopped contributing to the workers' pensions last year, and 92 percent of union members voted to reject the contract in September. A bankruptcy court judge allowed the company to force the union to accept the new collective bargaining agreement. So management forced the cuts they wanted on the union, and they still went belly up? And you blame the workers???
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Dude do you know stupid you sound? There were many people that were employed at Hostess for 20, 30, & 40 years! They didn't just show up to work for the last few decades sit down in a chair on their ass for 8 hours a day and sleep! You can try to blame Hostess all you want, but we live in a free society. If you don't like your job and benefits, you can freely leave and find work elsewhere. I know that sounds a lot tougher than trying to hold your employer hostage by not showing up for work, but here's the tricky part: when your employer says "If you don't return to work by Friday, we're closing the doors," and you don't return to work on Friday, stop sounding so pathetically surprised that the doors are closed. Union gambled. They lost. Get over it, suck it up and go find a new job. But please...quit bitching about the consequences of your own actions.
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 You can try to blame Hostess all you want, but we live in a free society. If you don't like your job and benefits, you can freely leave and find work elsewhere. I know that sounds a lot tougher than trying to hold your employer hostage by not showing up for work, but here's the tricky part: when your employer says "If you don't return to work by Friday, we're closing the doors," and you don't return to work on Friday, stop sounding so pathetically surprised that the doors are closed. It's easier to blame unions and tell the workers to find other jobs and ignore bad management at the executive level. Get over it dude! Thre executives failed and cost all these people their jobs. Those workers showed up every day and produced the product, rolled it onto the delivery trucks and the stores were stocked full of it! Careful with throwing that free society talk around. I'm sure someone can dig through some older posts and find one of your rants and raves about the election and say hey we live in a free society! Don't like the results, move to another country!
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 Tomato Can: Please don't post the same thing multiple times.
tomato can Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 Tomato Can: Please don't post the same thing multiple times. Sorry! I quoted 2 different people and felt the response should have been the same so I just copy and pasted it the 2nd time.
3rdnlng Posted November 17, 2012 Author Posted November 17, 2012 Sorry! I quoted 2 different people and felt the response should have been the same so I just copy and pasted it the 2nd time. You did it in post #89 too or I wouldn't have mentioned it.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted November 17, 2012 Posted November 17, 2012 From today's Wall Street Journal: Hostess posted sales of $2.5 billion in 2011 but lost $341 million and lacked the cash flow to hold out through the bakers union work stoppage that had only lost a few days of production so far. One reason is a labor-rule burden that by comparison makes Detroit look like Hong Kong. The snack giant endured $52 million in workers' comp claims in 2011, according to its bankruptcy filing this January. Hostess's 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012. Union work rules usually required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. Drivers weren't allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren't allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another "pull up" employee moved products from back rooms to shelves.
Recommended Posts