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 327
    More: Asinine, twinkies, white-breads, Ho Hos, liquidation, ding dongs, blueberries  
•       •       •

7004 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2012-11-29 07:45:36 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.


The union was offered 25% of a company that was already worthless, having been managed into the ground, and a $100 million IOU from the management that had already written them a massive IOU and then gone to court to have it discharged.

On top of that, their members' living wage jobs would be slashed to near minimum wage. And no, that would NOT be better than what they ended up with. When you're making a living wage, it's simply not worth the time you take away from looking for a new job. Especially when you've got potential employers gauging your value by asking what was last hourly wage at your previous job was.

So, good on the union. They could have gained some value for themselves, but instead they chose to do what was best for their workers.
 
2012-11-29 07:58:23 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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...

Shh, you're interrupting the circle derp.


ROFL.

Ya, can't be letting go of the guys who got the firm into bankruptcy...
 
2012-11-29 08:14:55 PM

Warlordtrooper: chrisco123: tricycleracer

+1 for calling $100k a pittance.
+1 for bashing unions.
+1 for brevity.

3/10.

We have junior traders on our desk, all of 22 years-old, who will be seriously pissed if they don't get a $400K bonus. $100K for an executive is a pittance.

I'll play them the worlds Smallest violin


I'd ask them to stand barefoot on a concrete floor and piss on 480V/3 phase.
 
2012-11-29 08:32:08 PM

matto22: The payment is part of thier employment contact.. What is wrong with that?
They signed the contract agreeing to stay on while the company was going under instead of going to look for another job.
Zoh my god, the company is fulfilling the contract they made with these employees...


FarkLibtards don't don't take the time to be bothered with reading comprehension.
 
2012-11-29 08:44:26 PM

Click Click D'oh: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: 1. There are no qualified executives at Hostess. This is well-established.

No, that's just the current witty remark of the day. The company going under is not necessarily indicative of all the executives performances within that company

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: 2. You don't need huge bonuses to retain executives. There is what is called 'salary'.

Which is also offered by other companies. Companies not in bankruptcy.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: 3. You don't need former executives to liquidate a company.

I seriously doubt the bakers or teamsters have the skill set necessary to liquidate a companies assets.


I'm pretty sure you don't really know what's going on with Hostess its past or the current situation, so it's hardly worth answering. Yes, absolutely Hostess's executives have been terrible. I suggest you learn something about this case. The notion of a bonus for anyone in this situation is insulting.

It is not necessary to retain any professional leadership in order to liquidate. I have no idea why you think this is the case. Yes, perhaps some might stay in order to unlimber its various parts, but why anyone assisting in these duties would therefore deserve any extra compensation is beyond me.

There are specialists who can liquidate companies, who can do so competently, and without whatever inanity you're trying to defend.
 
2012-11-29 08:54:05 PM
 
2012-11-29 09:02:10 PM
Sure, the amount of money isn't a lot in the scheme of golden parachutes. In fact, in context, it's very low.

However, it's the principle. This is just another example in a seemingly endless stream of examples where incompetence is rewarded at the very top while the rank and file take the big hit in proportional terms.

We all realize that's how life is. When a company is in serious trouble or even dissolved completely, the rank and file will suffer. But, the question is, why do the top brass need to benefit?
 
2012-11-29 09:06:16 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.


You are such a Jeuchebag.
 
2012-11-29 09:07:11 PM
Can't blame the owners for getting what's left of their company after the union destroyed it. Management was ready to deal but the union thugs wanted more money. Doors closed, gates locked and workers not working. Way to go union.
A good wake up call to other workers being pressured into joining unions.
 
2012-11-29 09:10:54 PM
Well, I'm officially convinced. The executives are the real victims here. As they move on to the next company they're going to drive into the ground, they may have to put off buying their next vacation homes. Have you ever seen a tear-stained hundred dollar bill? Not a pretty sight, my friend.
 
2012-11-29 09:16:58 PM
tricycleracer::

+1 for calling $100k a pittance.
+1 for bashing unions.
+1 for brevity.

3/10.

chrisco123: We have junior traders on our desk, all of 22 years-old, who will be seriously pissed if they don't get a $400K bonus. $100K for an executive is a pittance.

tricycleracer: Even if they bankrupt their clients with horrible stock picks?


The brokerages win regardless of whether the stocks go up or down. They make money on transactions. On the way up it's OMG BUY BUY BUY. On the way down it's OMG SELL SELL SELL.

"The title itself comes from a delightful old story, dating from the 1870s, when some traders gathered in the harbor at Newport, Rhode Island, to admire the incredible yachts of Wall Street's seriously rich brokers. After admiring these extravaganzas intently, one of the traders, William R. Travers, asked his companions, "Yes, but - where are the customers' yachts?" Mr. Travers later made a sizeable fortune, without the "benefit," we are left to imagine, of listening to brokers' advice..."

-- Fred Schwed, "Where Are The Customer's Yachts?" 
 
2012-11-29 10:37:56 PM

Click Click D'oh: I seriously doubt the bakers or teamsters have the skill set necessary to liquidate a companies assets.


I don't think the executives have the skill set either to liquidate their company and I don't believe they should get a bonus for staying on to attempt it (IMHO, I think the executives should step down). They didn't have the leadership qualities to keep the company healthy, the ingenuity to innovate when American diets were changing, nor the good sense to not get a company that makes *cupcakes* into a billion dollars worth of debt! That's why there is such a thing called "receivership".
 
2012-11-29 11:46:05 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.


So paying out the bonuses could in fact be cheaper than having to hire a whole new management team if the original quit en masse?
 
2012-11-30 01:22:53 AM
I know this won't make me popular, but a contract is a contract.

This is why failing companies must fail... because of bad decisions like this. Let them go through our legal system and either re-emerge, or they can all find new jobs... from the highest executive to the guy that cleans the bathrooms.

It's sad but there's no other practical way about it. What is "fair" is defined by our laws, not by our outrage.
 
2012-11-30 03:18:30 AM

roc6783: 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?


It's from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c&feature=youtube_gdata_play er

Sorry if the link's jacked up, doing this on my phone! It's a bit from SNL.
 
2012-11-30 09:37:03 AM

I should be in the kitchen: roc6783: 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?

It's from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NisCkxU544c&feature=youtube_gdata_play er

Sorry if the link's jacked up, doing this on my phone! It's a bit from SNL.


Gracias
 
2012-11-30 10:50:42 AM

matto22: The payment is part of thier employment contact.. What is wrong with that?
They signed the contract agreeing to stay on while the company was going under instead of going to look for another job.
Zoh my god, the company is fulfilling the contract they made with these employees...


Why is this contract to be honored when the process of bankruptcy is to liquidate and void exiting contracts?

You don't need to retain the morons who led to the downfall of the company. The court can appoint a liquidator.
 
2012-11-30 12:31:39 PM

skullkrusher: 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.


Cool. It can be paid for with the employees' pension fund that was raided.
 
2012-11-30 12:34:10 PM

BgJonson79: 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.


Your million-dollar babies have set the bar for success at "receivership;" it doesn't take a Harvard MBA to accomplish that.
 
2012-11-30 12:59:32 PM

caramba421: BgJonson79: 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.

Your million-dollar babies have set the bar for success at "receivership;" it doesn't take a Harvard MBA to accomplish that.


What makes them my million-dollar babies? Also, what gave you the idea that the bar was set at receivership? Isn't the bar nominally at "make a profit?"

Do you think people who probably failed algebra can run a business?
 
2012-11-30 04:57:35 PM

BgJonson79: caramba421: BgJonson79: 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.

Your million-dollar babies have set the bar for success at "receivership;" it doesn't take a Harvard MBA to accomplish that.

What makes them my million-dollar babies? Also, what gave you the idea that the bar was set at receivership? Isn't the bar nominally at "make a profit?"

Do you think people who probably failed algebra can run a business?


The bar is set at receivership because the shiat is in bankruptcy NOW even with the management that, according to you, is somehow better than giving it to the workers. Also, if the workers owned it, they would be able to hire whatever CEO they choose. Lastly, the whole "professional management" scheme should be re-evaluated because a large number of those people are just charlatans. A Harvard MBA doesn't mean shiat, and there is something wrong with a system in which management very regularly doesn't know a goddamn thing about the business that they are involved in. I would also be willing to wager good money that out of the many thousands of employees at Hostess, there exists at least one who has a better grasp of abstract mathematical concepts than some jerk-off MBA. Granted, I am not a baker, but I would be more than willing to go head-to-head with some idiot like Carly Fiorina at any test of intellectual capability.
 
Displayed 27 of 327 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