If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Good news for all you laid off Hostess employees, the top executives bonuses totaling up to $1.8 million will most likely to be approved by a judge today   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 321
    More: Asinine, twinkies, white-breads, Ho Hos, liquidation, ding dongs, blueberries  
•       •       •

7012 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 2:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



321 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 04:17:42 PM  

JeffreyScott: While $1.8 million sounds like a large chunck of money, it is within a 3.5 to 1 ratio and is very reasonable.


That's some good satire you've got going there. It's good to know you don't actually believe what you typed because that would mean you're some sort of meth-addled idiot.
 
2012-11-29 04:23:45 PM  

Bullseyed: The teamsters did take the deal. And the union has 100% responsibility, unless paying workers too much money is "poor leadership".


I know the Teamsters took the deal. What I was getting at is rather than pushing more money/benefits, they should have pushed for additional seats on the board and more ownership.
 
2012-11-29 04:24:12 PM  
As deceitful people tend to do, subby left out a few facts: Since the unions were offered 25% of the company, board membership, and a $100 million IOU from management........why yes, the executives are being paid less than 2% of what the unions would have received. Way to go, unions, I'm sure the 18,000 people without jobs are proud of your greed that has left them unemployed.
 
2012-11-29 04:24:19 PM  

ongbok: MaudlinMutantMollusk: raerae1980: That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

I'm thinking they achieved exactly what they were hired to do

Thread over.

chrisco123: This is $1.8 million. About a hundred grand per executive. It's nothing.

If this union had played ball, they'd all still have jobs. I feel no pity for this (or any other union). Unions lost their relevance 200 years ago.

If the union would have played ball they would have been getting paid slightly more than minimum wage and would have been liquidated within 5 years anyway.


Wouldn't that be a big upgrade from what they ended up with?
 
2012-11-29 04:25:22 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Uh... the bonuses are to retain management members who will be involved in the liquidation process, and who would likely jump ship otherwise. Farkers do realize that qualified executives would flee Hostess without retention bonuses right? Well, that actually could explain a lot around Fark if the average Farker would stay with a dieing company instead of seeking alternative employment...


Good, let them jump ship and transfer the brand and machinery to the workers.
 
2012-11-29 04:27:05 PM  

Bullseyed: Poor performance? Paying your workers too much is poor performance?


Ultimately management is responsible for the success/failure of the company before they ever got to the cliff where the union pushed them over. They were the ones that failed to innovate and automate which would have cut costs. Certainly, the union has it's share of responsibility in that they'd rather be out of work than work for less (seriously, WTF!). Why the union didn't take the deal for 25% stake in the company as well as 2 seats on the board is beyond me.
 
2012-11-29 04:29:18 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: fickenchucker: That's just stupid.

But place yourself in those striking employees' shoes. I cannot for the life of me figure out why they would strike and become jobless at the end. I would vote to keep working and look for another job with at least something coming in. Unemployment can't be as much as the reduced pay rate, can it?

Educate yourself.

Link




What's your farking point? That it's more noble to vote one's self out of a job and lose your house because of union brotherhood? The link doesn't address my question and nobility doesn't pay the bills.

I already said management was terrible, the union leadership misread the "bluff" of closing the plants, and still ask--how much would unemployment be versus taking the lower wage and looking for a better job?
 
2012-11-29 04:29:37 PM  
These guys outright stole from their employees by "borrowing" their pension funds that they paid into, then had that discharged. These farks should be in jail.
 
2012-11-29 04:30:10 PM  

tricycleracer: Bullseyed: Dr Dreidel: and people wonder why the CEO class is reviled more and more every day

Because braindead morons like you have no idea how the world works?

Speaking of the world...

[static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 300x268]


Bullseyed is a birther. Facts and reality are anathema to such individuals.
 
2012-11-29 04:31:38 PM  

caramba421: Click Click D'oh: Uh... the bonuses are to retain management members who will be involved in the liquidation process, and who would likely jump ship otherwise. Farkers do realize that qualified executives would flee Hostess without retention bonuses right? Well, that actually could explain a lot around Fark if the average Farker would stay with a dieing company instead of seeking alternative employment...

Good, let them jump ship and transfer the brand and machinery to the workers.


Yeah, I'm sure they'll be even better at managing the company. Must be why they're still labor and not management, 'cause few people stick with labor on purpose if they have the ability to move up.
 
2012-11-29 04:32:00 PM  

dwrash: It goes this way.. employee and employee contracts that are legal are honored prior to paying any creditors during a bankrupcy proceeding. The CEO and executives are technically employees of the company and their bonuses are usually built into their employment contract... it sucks.


But the worker pension fund is fair game, isn't it?
 
2012-11-29 04:32:03 PM  

Mattoon: As deceitful people tend to do, subby left out a few facts: Since the unions were offered 25% of the company, board membership, and a $100 million IOU from management........why yes, the executives are being paid less than 2% of what the unions would have received. Way to go, unions, I'm sure the 18,000 people without jobs are proud of your greed that has left them unemployed.


No, no. Unions are awesome and never do anything wrong.
 
2012-11-29 04:32:45 PM  

vernonFL: The bonuses do not include pay for CEO Gregory Rayburn, who was brought on as a restructuring expert earlier this year. Rayburn is being paid $125,000 a month.

Does he shiat out gold twinkies? What could he possibly be doing to earn $125,000 a month?


Hey he tanked the company. Thats some hard work right there
 
2012-11-29 04:34:20 PM  

caramba421: Click Click D'oh: Uh... the bonuses are to retain management members who will be involved in the liquidation process, and who would likely jump ship otherwise. Farkers do realize that qualified executives would flee Hostess without retention bonuses right? Well, that actually could explain a lot around Fark if the average Farker would stay with a dieing company instead of seeking alternative employment...

Good, let them jump ship and transfer the brand and machinery to the workers.


I'm sure they'd be happy to sell the brand and machinery to the workers.
 
2012-11-29 04:34:51 PM  

Mattoon: Since the unions were offered 25% of the company, board membership, and a $100 million IOU from management


That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.
 
2012-11-29 04:37:26 PM  

Jacobin: vernonFL: The bonuses do not include pay for CEO Gregory Rayburn, who was brought on as a restructuring expert earlier this year. Rayburn is being paid $125,000 a month.

Does he shiat out gold twinkies? What could he possibly be doing to earn $125,000 a month?

Hey he tanked the company. Thats some hard work right there


If you're brought in for restructuring, doesn't that mean it's already tanked?
 
2012-11-29 04:46:26 PM  
You know, I get the employment contracts aspect of it, and I get that most of their pay is in bonuses anyway. No argument that they legally deserve the money (morally, that's another story perhaps).

What I don't get is that they are afraid of them jumping ship. I mean seriously, who would go out of their way to recruit execs from a failed company like this? How crappy does your company have to be to say, "ooh, look, those guys who ran Hostess into the ground are available... let's hire them"?

The fact that they can get a job that *isn't* entry level or low level management after this disaster is what confuses the hell out of me. Wouldn't you do better to just hire someone internally? -At least they work at a successful company.
 
2012-11-29 04:46:59 PM  

hermitage_deux: vulture caps look at a company's annual net revenue and then use that figure to determine how much money can be borrowed where the annual interest payment on the new loan is equal to the annual net revenue.

Say, 10 million in revenue and a 10% interest rate ... the raiders would borrow 100 million, and then use the revenue to pay that note. they just got 100 million to pay themselves bonuses with. and the company has a 100 million bill that they can never repay (because their former total net revenue is only enough to pay the interest).


I think banks are a little more sophisticated in their ability to calculate debt carrying capacity than this.

'What, your net income will only offset the interest of a PIK loan with no ability to save for the balloon payment...why sure, we will make that loan'
 
2012-11-29 04:50:12 PM  
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 
2012-11-29 04:51:40 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Joe Blowme: HAHAHAHA the jealousy in this thread is awsome

There's no shame in being jealous of people earning $1.8 mil to mismanage a company. shiat, I'd do it for half that.


I'd do it for a quarter of that! I'M MORE COMPETITIVE, HIRE MEEEEEE
 
2012-11-29 04:53:05 PM  

skullkrusher: tricycleracer: Elroydb: Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment.

Payment for driving a company into the ground?

payment to handle operations during liquidation. Sinking ship still needs first mates. Those first mates need a reason to stick around. This isn't hard.


Any first-year business student could obviously do a better job than these morons and for far, far less.
 
2012-11-29 04:55:08 PM  

ghare: skullkrusher: tricycleracer: Elroydb: Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment.

Payment for driving a company into the ground?

payment to handle operations during liquidation. Sinking ship still needs first mates. Those first mates need a reason to stick around. This isn't hard.

Any first-year business student could obviously do a better job than these morons and for far, far less.


Do you honestly believe that?
 
2012-11-29 04:55:16 PM  

ghare: skullkrusher: tricycleracer: Elroydb: Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment.

Payment for driving a company into the ground?

payment to handle operations during liquidation. Sinking ship still needs first mates. Those first mates need a reason to stick around. This isn't hard.

Any first-year business student could obviously do a better job than these morons and for far, far less.


Then why weren't they brought in?
 
2012-11-29 04:56:31 PM  

cwheelie:
3. $52 million in worker's comp claims in 2010. Really? Injured by a ding Dong falling on your foot?


I worked for Groupo Bimbo for some time. Baked goods factories are surprisingly dangerous. Lots of open machines with movie parts (especially at the packaging locations and loading up trays for delivery). Coupled with confusing mazes of machinery (and lots of low-hanging conveyer belts) with a lot of heavy lifting activity going on around (usually done by fork-lift). The factories, especially the ones on the coasts (the mid-west factories have larger floorplans because there is simply more space to build) are usually very cramped, there is little effective room to maneuver.

Severe injuries were thankfully rare, but they did happen. I heard stories of one guy being bumped by a passing working who was dragging a dolly. The guy's hand got caught in the bagger and he lost two fingers. Worst I saw in my tenure was a guy who tripped over some product that fell off the line and cut his hand, requiring a few stitches.
 
2012-11-29 04:57:08 PM  
moving parts, not movie parts
 
2012-11-29 05:05:00 PM  
I thought I would bring up we're all talking about the final stages of this company.

What do you think built up to this point? Really bad management agreeing to ridiculous union job inefficiencies, and then doing some really dubious things to keep the place running. I read somewhere the bread products couldn't be delivered along with the snack cake products, requiring parellel distribution networks. And the truck loading and unloading processes were very convoluted and overstaffed.

Anyone know if these things are accurate? It sounds to me they all fell into some serious tunnel vision and lost their focus on how to run an efficient company.
 
2012-11-29 05:05:09 PM  

BgJonson79: ghare: skullkrusher: tricycleracer: Elroydb: Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment.

Payment for driving a company into the ground?

payment to handle operations during liquidation. Sinking ship still needs first mates. Those first mates need a reason to stick around. This isn't hard.

Any first-year business student could obviously do a better job than these morons and for far, far less.

Then why weren't they brought in?


I don't know. If I had to pick between a proven failure and someone new, that's not a very hard choice.
 
2012-11-29 05:05:52 PM  
To sum up:

Union to Hostess Execs: "Give us the same as we've always got or we'll GTFO."
Execs to union: "GTFO"

(company shuts down)

Execs to Holding Company: "Give us MORE or we'll GTFO"
Holding Company to Execs: "Ok." 

/am I close?
 
2012-11-29 05:11:11 PM  
Unions are for pussies.

/striking
//you did it wrong
 
2012-11-29 05:12:29 PM  
everyone's all "unions are wrong" and "the workers ran it into the ground" and "the execs are con artists"

and i'm over here chomping on my chocolate Hostess donuts and chocolate Zingers

om nom nom
 
2012-11-29 05:23:14 PM  

Joe Blowme:
Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed? You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.
-Friedman


How cute. You think America still runs on free enterprise.

Joe Blowme: So what law was broken?


Legality and morality are not the same thing, especially when you're talking about people who buy laws.
 
2012-11-29 05:24:43 PM  

Bullseyed: raerae1980: That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

Why would anyone in management stay on though the liquidation otherwise? All the managers would quit.


Why do you want the people who tanked the company to stay on through the liquidation?
 
2012-11-29 05:26:44 PM  

BgJonson79: ghare: skullkrusher: tricycleracer: Elroydb: Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment.

Payment for driving a company into the ground?

payment to handle operations during liquidation. Sinking ship still needs first mates. Those first mates need a reason to stick around. This isn't hard.

Any first-year business student could obviously do a better job than these morons and for far, far less.

Then why weren't they brought in?


Because the people in management are already inside men. Hostess has been "running" under these executives for only a few years, since the vulture venture capitalists first got ahold of it.
 
2012-11-29 05:27:13 PM  
This is the way that corporations in the united states have always been.

It was the responsibility of the suits to handle the financial dealings of the company as they sold the twinkies
It was the responsibility of the sales and marketing suits to sell the twinkies
it was the responsibility of the chemists and such to come up with the formula for the twinkies
it was the responsibility of the bakers and other workers to make the twinkies

One of these groups in unionized. Guess which one takes it in the ass when not enough twinkies are sold?

a. the one group who is the least responsible for how many twinkies are sold, and how much money comes into the company.

It's always the folks on the bottom who get screwed when the people at the top f*ck up. Same as it always was.
 
2012-11-29 05:36:23 PM  

vernonFL: The bonuses do not include pay for CEO Gregory Rayburn, who was brought on as a restructuring expert earlier this year. Rayburn is being paid $125,000 a month.

Does he shiat out gold twinkies? What could he possibly be doing to earn $125,000 a month?


Talk to to corporate (like a boss)
Approve memos (like a boss)
Lead a workshop (like a boss)
Remember birthdays (like a boss)
Direct workflow (like a boss)
My own bathroom (like a boss)
Micromanage (like a boss)
Promote Synergy (like a boss)
Hit on Debra (like a boss)
Get rejected (like a boss)
Swallow sadness (like a boss)
Send some faxes (like a boss)
Call a sex line (like a boss)
Cry deeply (like a boss)
Demand a refund (like a boss)
Eat a bagel (like a boss)
Harrassment lawsuit (like a boss)
No promotion (like a boss)
Fifth of vodka (like a boss)
shiat on Debra's desk (like a boss)
Buy a gun (like a boss)
In my mouth (like a boss)

Oh fark man I can't farking do it... shiat!

Pussy out (like a boss)
Puke on Debra's desk (like a boss)
Jump out the window (like a boss)
Suck a dude's dick (like a boss)
Score some coke (like a boss)
Crash my car (like a boss)
Suck my own dick (like a boss)
Eat some chicken strips (like a boss)
Chop my balls off (like a boss)
Black out in the sewer (like a boss)
Meet a giant fish (like a boss)
fark its brains out (like a boss)
Turn into a jet (like a boss)
Bomb the Russians (like a boss)
Crash into the sun (like a boss)
Now I'm dead (like a boss)
 
2012-11-29 05:41:30 PM  
This wouldn't have happened if Romney was elected.
 
2012-11-29 05:58:00 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Ah, this thread again. People still not understanding employment contracts.


Contracts protecting incompetence with huge payouts are not for blah people.

Under bankruptcy, contracts can be nullified.
 
2012-11-29 06:04:50 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: vernonFL: T***snip***


Is that from something or is what goes on in your head as scary as what goes on in mine?
 
2012-11-29 06:07:17 PM  

Moopy Mac: snocone: Moopy Mac: snocone: Grand_Moff_Joseph: raerae1980: That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

The grounds are: That's how today's hedge fund/vulture capital model works. Extract profit and bonuses at the expense of all else

This is the economic plan you farkers almost voted into the Presidency.
Be proud, be stupid, be partisan!

Google which Fund owned Hostess. Now Google who runs that Fund.

Thanks, Dr Feelgood, knowing both choices are chit is so comforting.
I was just farking the group that was so proud of this business plan, they made it a party platform.

The point is that not all PE Funds operate the same. And Ripplewood is not known as a vulture fund in the industry.


So, is it new management, a new leaf or just, gee, did we do that?
'Cause it makes all the difference, eh?
 
2012-11-29 06:10:42 PM  

Weaver95: "And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!"



Yeah - that $97 per employee would have TOTALLY saved the company.
 
2012-11-29 06:23:58 PM  

Thunderpipes: Good.

Those Hostess employees brought about the companies' collapse. They deserve dirt in their eye.

Exec bonuses tied to how well they handle the liquidation. Sounds reasonable.

Unions suck.


Yes the last time they took pay and benefit cuts the CEO was only able to triple his salary, if they'd only taken deeper cuts they could maybe they could have afforded a real CEO instead of all the different clowns they've had in the past 10 years. CEO pay linked to how much they can get the union to give up, cause you know they're job creators.

Totally all the unions fault.
 
2012-11-29 06:27:29 PM  
Hostess has been in trouble since their first bankruptcy in 2004...before they were purchased.

I'm not going to say one side should be blamed more than the other in this...but it's utterly insane that the leadership of a FAILED company is getting paid bonuses...for sucking.
 
2012-11-29 06:28:05 PM  

snocone: Moopy Mac: snocone: Moopy Mac: snocone: Grand_Moff_Joseph: raerae1980: That is BS. Borders Execs tried persuading the judge in our bankruptcy to approve their bonuses. Judge said no. What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

The grounds are: That's how today's hedge fund/vulture capital model works. Extract profit and bonuses at the expense of all else

This is the economic plan you farkers almost voted into the Presidency.
Be proud, be stupid, be partisan!

Google which Fund owned Hostess. Now Google who runs that Fund.

Thanks, Dr Feelgood, knowing both choices are chit is so comforting.
I was just farking the group that was so proud of this business plan, they made it a party platform.

The point is that not all PE Funds operate the same. And Ripplewood is not known as a vulture fund in the industry.

So, is it new management, a new leaf or just, gee, did we do that?
'Cause it makes all the difference, eh?


In this case it was a miscalculation by Ripplewood in buying (and over-leveraging) a struggling company whose previous management was very poor and its new management could not turn the corner.

Hostess was a train wreck because it was run poorly and has been run poorly for years. It was in bankruptcy for years, starting less than a decade a go. It came out of bankruptcy weak and with too much debt (some good debt, but a lot of bad debt with hedge funds).

The "negotiations" with the Unions were a farce anyway. Hostess was done and no deal they could get from the Unions would change that.
 
2012-11-29 06:29:52 PM  

spmkk: Weaver95: "And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!"


Yeah - that $97 per employee would have TOTALLY saved the company.


Nothing would have saved the company. The Union negotiations were all for show.
 
2012-11-29 06:32:42 PM  

Mock26: What would happen if the bonuses were not approved and those 19 executives quit right then and there? How does this affect the liquidation process or the process of selling off of products to other companies? Would the government have to step in and take over all of this? Or does everything just come to a stop?

/Serious questions.
//Know every little about bankruptcy proceedings.


Someone still has to know how to properly dot the t's and cross the i's. A liquidation bankruptcy for a company this size is incredibly complex. If the upper management abandoned en masse, they would have to hire a new set. Likely the new set would be more expensive (as the ship is already sinking, instead of just leaking) because the new group has no job security. Also, the bankruptcy would probably cost more and take longer because the new people don't know the company as well. Because of this, the creditors of Hostess will get less money back for their investment (probably 5 cents on the dollars instead of 10). Their brand also weakens because of it, losing worth in selling power.
 
2012-11-29 06:35:13 PM  

cwheelie: Don't want to defend the execs much, BUT here's some of waht they were dealing with and why the company had trouble becoming profitable:
1. 80 (80!) different penesion and benefit plans for the various unions. Those are very expensive to administer.
2. Labor - per union rules only a certain employee could load the delivery trucks. Cakes had to be loaded on 1 truck and bread on another, even when going to the same location. Once at the location, another union guy had to move the goods from the delivery dock to shelves. there's 4 jobs w/benefits that could have been done by 2.
3. $52 million in worker's comp claims in 2010. Really? Injured by a ding Dong falling on your foot?
4. The market. How many of you farkers bought one of their products in the last few years? (Not counting that night your bro-in-law came over with a nug of some good shiat to smoke)
5. Yeah, some of the execs were probably wrong about strategy & execution. ("coach -how do you feel about the execution of your team?" Coach: "I'm for it")


And the reason they were dealing with this is because their predecessors agreed to all of it. At some other time some other shiatty CEO said OK to it, signed on the line and took his bonus. Unions don't make deals with themselves, and they can't put a deal in place unless someone from management signed it. So, the blame still rests with the upper management of hostess, if they couldn't afford the deal with the union they shouldn't have signed it.
 
2012-11-29 06:36:47 PM  

ArkAngel: Mock26: What would happen if the bonuses were not approved and those 19 executives quit right then and there? How does this affect the liquidation process or the process of selling off of products to other companies? Would the government have to step in and take over all of this? Or does everything just come to a stop?

/Serious questions.
//Know every little about bankruptcy proceedings.

Someone still has to know how to properly dot the t's and cross the i's. A liquidation bankruptcy for a company this size is incredibly complex. If the upper management abandoned en masse, they would have to hire a new set. Likely the new set would be more expensive (as the ship is already sinking, instead of just leaking) because the new group has no job security. Also, the bankruptcy would probably cost more and take longer because the new people don't know the company as well. Because of this, the creditors of Hostess will get less money back for their investment (probably 5 cents on the dollars instead of 10). Their brand also weakens because of it, losing worth in selling power.


Where do you get these numbers? Hostess has around $1B of outstanding debt right now. Their brands alone may approach that number.
 
2012-11-29 06:44:01 PM  

unlikely: I am constantly amazed that there hasn't been a torches-and-pitchforks uprising yet.


Do you know how expensive torches-and-pitchforks are, even at Wally World?
 
2012-11-29 07:11:02 PM  
I'm sure the union is taking care of the workers with all the dues they've paid in. Apparently, the execs didn't have to pay union dues to walk away with their change.
 
2012-11-29 07:29:37 PM  
What? It's only 95 thousand dollars each for running the company into the ground.
 
Displayed 50 of 321 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report