Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

7029 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 2:23 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-29 10:32:34 AM  
And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!
 
2012-11-29 10:35:27 AM  
Thank God! I was worried about those guys!
 
2012-11-29 10:36:07 AM  
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?
 
2012-11-29 10:37:00 AM  

raerae1980: T What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?


because they're rich! plus, ya know, unions.
 
2012-11-29 10:37:03 AM  
The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!
 
2012-11-29 10:37:09 AM  
Bunch of farking ding dongs......
 
2012-11-29 10:38:00 AM  

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
 
2012-11-29 10:38:06 AM  

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
 
2012-11-29 10:38:14 AM  
Our long national nightmare is over!
 
2012-11-29 10:40:19 AM  

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


How does a cupcake company build up $1 billion in debt? DAMN YOU UNIONS!!!!
 
2012-11-29 10:43:11 AM  
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but... Unions?
 
2012-11-29 10:45:31 AM  

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


Well, yeah. But Borders was also raided, and had quite a bit of debt as well. Judge still said no. I can't imagine it's because Hostess had a union and we were lowely retail slaves.
 
2012-11-29 10:46:28 AM  
They need that money so they can go out and create all the jobs. You'll see.
 
2012-11-29 10:47:23 AM  

basemetal: Bunch of farking ding dongs......


I prefer to call them Ho Ho's.
 
2012-11-29 10:59:10 AM  

AlwaysRightBoy: basemetal: Bunch of farking ding dongs......

I prefer to call them Ho Ho's.


Or Snowballers.
 
2012-11-29 11:07:02 AM  

raerae1980: 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

Well, yeah. But Borders was also raided, and had quite a bit of debt as well. Judge still said no. I can't imagine it's because Hostess had a union and we were lowely retail slaves.


Their bonuses are only slightly larger than the judge's, would be my guess.
 
2012-11-29 11:09:44 AM  
I think we can all agree that the top executives had an awesome union.
 
2012-11-29 11:12:43 AM  
The judge can only rule if it's legal or not, not how vile or wrong it may be.
 
2012-11-29 11:13:35 AM  
I think I'm going to open a business selling pitchforks and torches to these l aid off workers. i'll make a killing.
 
2012-11-29 11:19:05 AM  
How a company can reward executives for poor performance is beyond me. Then again, the union members would have had 25% of the company and 2 seats on the board so they could have fought this sort of crap.
 
2012-11-29 11:22:04 AM  
Well, yeah, they have shown to be the real job cr...Oh. For the last 10 years they have lead the stagnant company to innovate...What? They didn't? After the greedy unions conceded the last time, they took that money and invested it into...Seriously? Themselves? Like the company right? No?

It's theirs, not yours. That's that.

They just couldn't compete in this economy. Little Debbie is still selling cloud cakes. Link
 
2012-11-29 11:41:53 AM  

beantowndog: They need that money so they can go out and create all the jobs. You'll see.


Well, think of how many people related to the legal system are continuing/increasing their employment due to these proceedings...
 
2012-11-29 12:09:46 PM  

Makh: They just couldn't compete in this economy. Little Debbie is still selling cloud cakes. Link


Pfft! No one bakes a cake as tasty as Tastykake.
 
2012-11-29 12:14:24 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Makh: They just couldn't compete in this economy. Little Debbie is still selling cloud cakes. Link

Pfft! No one bakes a cake as tasty as Tastykake.


They make delicious Kandy Kakes. Everyone knows white Krispy Kandy Kakes do very well in the south.
 
2012-11-29 12:21:47 PM  
I am constantly amazed that there hasn't been a torches-and-pitchforks uprising yet.
 
2012-11-29 12:22:49 PM  

Snarfangel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Makh: They just couldn't compete in this economy. Little Debbie is still selling cloud cakes. Link

Pfft! No one bakes a cake as tasty as Tastykake.

They make delicious Kandy Kakes. Everyone knows white Krispy Kandy Kakes do very well in the south.


I feel bad for laughing at that.
 
2012-11-29 12:29:36 PM  
What I found truly horrible is that I just went "one point eight mil...is that all?"

Used to them getting 50 mil and up a piece.
 
2012-11-29 12:34:56 PM  
I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.
 
2012-11-29 12:46:18 PM  

sammyk: I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.


If you're over 25 you already have.
 
2012-11-29 12:58:21 PM  
Um, 35...
 
2012-11-29 01:00:11 PM  

doyner: AlwaysRightBoy: basemetal: Bunch of farking ding dongs......

I prefer to call them Ho Ho's.

Or Snowballers.


All right you guys, stop it with the Zingers.
 
2012-11-29 01:13:06 PM  

doyner: sammyk: I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.

If you're over 25 you already have.


Was about to say.
 
2012-11-29 01:13:44 PM  

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

 
2012-11-29 01:23:46 PM  
What will be interesting is when one vulture company buys another
 
2012-11-29 01:34:36 PM  
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?
 
2012-11-29 01:40:20 PM  

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


No, but I have to wonder that if the Baker's Union took the deal and perhaps pushed the Teamsters to take a similar deal (stake in the company and seats on the board) if they couldn't have blocked these bonuses.

Really though, the board and stockholders are to blame for rewarding poor management with bonuses. The union does have some culpability in Hostess' demise...but poor leadership at the top is the root cause.
 
2012-11-29 01:53:20 PM  

baka-san: What I found truly horrible is that I just went "one point eight mil...is that all?"

Used to them getting 50 mil and up a piece.


Yeah, me too.
 
2012-11-29 02:27:06 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?


Creating jobs, duh. As a job creator he needs to be rewarded for his difficult task in these harsh Obummer economic times.
 
2012-11-29 02:27:33 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:28:18 PM  
Well, why don't the union workers become executives then? Problem solved
 
2012-11-29 02:28:35 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?


Making sure those execs get their bonuses.
 
2012-11-29 02:28:55 PM  
laughingcolonialguypoorpeoplesuck.jpg
 
2012-11-29 02:29:14 PM  

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?

company says the incentive pay is needed to retain the 19 corporate officers and "high-level managers" during the liquidation process, which could take about a year.


It helps if ya, you know, read the article. Then again I wouldn't expect that much from a Borders employee.
 
2012-11-29 02:31:45 PM  

baka-san: What I found truly horrible is that I just went "one point eight mil...is that all?"

Used to them getting 50 mil and up a piece.


You're used to Hostess executives getting 50 mil and up? What on earth are you basing that on?
 
2012-11-29 02:31:52 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?


He has responsibilities. He's responsible for the smooth and continuing operations of the Hostess compan...oh.

Yeah, he should owe a bunch of that back. As should the board - how the hell is it legal for them to compensate themselves after the company has basically gone tits-up? This shouldn't even be in front of a judge, it should just be flat illegal. Put the rest of the liquidity in the company that isn't going to paying the SALARIES of employees (management too, I guess) after everything's rolled up into the pension fund, or donate it to charity.

// and people wonder why the CEO class is reviled more and more every day
// to say nothing of the Union of 99 CEOs (which is a larf in itself) that not even the GOP wants to give the time of day
 
2012-11-29 02:31:54 PM  
I was rebutted in a discussion on this topic that pointing out:
1. The management guaranteeing raises/bonuses
2. The debt burden added by the investment firm
3. The poor product planning that results in an inability to sell fatty snacks to a nation with 100M obese people
4. The union was faulted for punting on an 8% reduction in pay, but it was actually a position taken to protect their pensions which is sorta their role

... all make me an "Obamanation." This is after I characterized the whole collapse, knowing that union pension obligations were another huge chunk of Hostess' debt burden as a "team effort."

What am I missing that makes this exclusively the fault of the workers' unions?
 
2012-11-29 02:32:24 PM  
If it goes through, I hope there's some good old fashioned union justice enacted.
 
2012-11-29 02:32:42 PM  
What is that? $100 per employee?
 
2012-11-29 02:34:06 PM  
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...
 
2012-11-29 02:34:28 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!


It the American way actually

/you bought it you live it
//what don't like being a nation of sociopaths?
///wait you do
 
2012-11-29 02:35:14 PM  
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...
 
2012-11-29 02:35:37 PM  
Ah, this thread again. People still not understanding employment contracts.
 
2012-11-29 02:35:45 PM  
Not to worry. I'm sure it will all trickle down.
 
2012-11-29 02:36:05 PM  

factoryconnection: I was rebutted in a discussion on this topic that pointing out:
1. The management guaranteeing raises/bonuses
2. The debt burden added by the investment firm
3. The poor product planning that results in an inability to sell fatty snacks to a nation with 100M obese people
4. The union was faulted for punting on an 8% reduction in pay, but it was actually a position taken to protect their pensions which is sorta their role

... all make me an "Obamanation." This is after I characterized the whole collapse, knowing that union pension obligations were another huge chunk of Hostess' debt burden as a "team effort."

What am I missing that makes this exclusively the fault of the workers' unions?


It's not the fault of the unions, exclusively or otherswise. Hostess was going under, and they're using the union as a scapegoat.
 
2012-11-29 02:36:07 PM  
The bonus is not a reward, it's a bribe to keep them at the steering wheel until the ship sinks completely.
 
2012-11-29 02:36:11 PM  
$1,800,000 divided by 16,000 employees = $112.50

Or, a little more than half a day's wages.

BIG FARKIN' DEAL!!!!!
 
2012-11-29 02:36:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: how the hell is it legal for them to compensate themselves after the company has basically gone tits-up? This shouldn't even be in front of a judge, it should just be flat illegal. Put the rest of the liquidity in the company that isn't going to paying the SALARIES of employees (management too, I guess) after everything's rolled up into the pension fund, or donate it to charity.

// and people wonder why the CEO class is reviled more and more every day
// to say nothing of the Union of 99 CEOs (which is a larf in itself) that not even the GOP wants to give the time of day



^^^ THIS

It's an awesome deal, really. It doesn't matter how the company performs at all, they still get their damned bonus..... Nothin' but a bunch of overpaid weathermen if you ask me..........
 
2012-11-29 02:36:49 PM  
meh
 
2012-11-29 02:36:55 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...


Shh, you're interrupting the circle derp.
 
2012-11-29 02:37:34 PM  
If they needed incentives to keep high-level managers on to help close down the company, I really can't see a problem with this and predict the judge most likely won't either. From other companies that I am aware of that have liquidated, as long as they can justify the costs and no one did anything illegal or individually caused the problem, the courts allow it.
 
2012-11-29 02:38:23 PM  
The suitors now include at least five national retailers such as supermarkets, a financial adviser for the company said in bankruptcy court.

I wonder if Walmart will try to purchase the brand.
 
2012-11-29 02:38:27 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:38:28 PM  

factoryconnection: I was rebutted in a discussion on this topic that pointing out:
1. The management guaranteeing raises/bonuses
2. The debt burden added by the investment firm
3. The poor product planning that results in an inability to sell fatty snacks to a nation with 100M obese people
4. The union was faulted for punting on an 8% reduction in pay, but it was actually a position taken to protect their pensions which is sorta their role

... all make me an "Obamanation." This is after I characterized the whole collapse, knowing that union pension obligations were another huge chunk of Hostess' debt burden as a "team effort."

What am I missing that makes this exclusively the fault of the workers' unions?


Republicans and Fox News claim it's exclusively the fault of the workers' unions, so it must be true!

/that's all I can come up with out of all this...
 
2012-11-29 02:39:41 PM  

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.


2/10. probably not going to get many bites. Shouldn't have gone with so high a number.
 
2012-11-29 02:40:02 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:40:12 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: What will be interesting is when one vulture company buys another


i290.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-29 02:40:30 PM  
$1.8 million split between what nineteen people in top management for a company that takes in nearly $3 billion in revenues? Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment. Obviously it was the $1.8 million in bonuses and not the $700 million a year being paid out to retired people for pension and health benefits. That is $700 million in costs to people who are no longer producing for your company. On top of that you gotta pay all the bills as well as salary. I guess if they gave that money back they could write a check to all the employees for $100.
 
2012-11-29 02:41:14 PM  

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.


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

3/10.
 
2012-11-29 02:41:55 PM  

tricycleracer: 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.

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

3/10.


$100k is a pittance.
 
2012-11-29 02:42:23 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-29 02:42:27 PM  
Wow it must be super awesome to be part of the one percent. Run your company like shiat and drive it into the ground and still get a bonus on the way out!!
 
2012-11-29 02:42:53 PM  
That's an awful high salary just for liquidizing twinkies, I mean, I was able to do that with just a blender and a bunch of rum.

Not really sure what happened after that, but from what I'm told I threw up on someone's dog.
 
2012-11-29 02:43:39 PM  

doyner: Thank God! I was worried about those guys!


I see we're done here.
 
2012-11-29 02:43:53 PM  

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?


Oh that's easy, if you don;t bribe the execs with extra money, they quit and find other jobs and we NEED them to shut down the company properly. Seriously, they say that to judges all the time with a straight face. I've seen a varaint on it in nearly every Chapter 11 case I've ever worked. The call them "Retention bonuses" (as if retaining a job when everybody else is losing theirs isn;t enough of a bonus)


. It's kinda funny, but all the time we hear execs at failing companies echo the same arguments they call the Unions "greedy" for making. The idea that people need to be properly compensated for theier labors and financially rewarded for their loyalty is accepted as gospel in most corporate boardrooms-so long as it applies only to those occupying the exeutive suites. For anyone else, the feeling is that they should be greatful to even GET a paycheck and should stop whining about it getting smaller.


Just after AIG nearly collpsed the American economy because of its stunning incompetence, the execs were bitterly complaining to the Treasury department via e-mail that if Treasury insisted on putting restrictions on the bonuses they could pay senior executives with the $80 BILLION in emergency loan money Treasury was giving them, it would simply CRIPPLE the company because all thier "Top Talent" would simply leave for other jobs. As if there WERE other jobs avaialble right then in a financial secotr in which investment banks were falling like dominoes, and as if anyone would (or should) hire someone with the stink of AIG's FAIL still lingering on them.

To Treasury's credit, the main deal went down in January 2009 and the incoming Treasury team led by Giethner took the lead in those negotiations and stuck to their guns on that one.
 
2012-11-29 02:43:55 PM  

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!

No, but I have to wonder that if the Baker's Union took the deal and perhaps pushed the Teamsters to take a similar deal (stake in the company and seats on the board) if they couldn't have blocked these bonuses.

Really though, the board and stockholders are to blame for rewarding poor management with bonuses. The union does have some culpability in Hostess' demise...but poor leadership at the top is the root cause.


One of the strange disconnects with business and markets is between metrics and results. Often contracts are signed where bonuses are contingent upon specific metrics. The belief is that a given metric indicates some measure of success, such as sales numbers, net profit, customer retention, etc, when success in the marketplace is not simply a list of unassociated numbers in specific columns.

All too often, this codified myopic focus on a number of individual factors means that managers are in line for massive bonuses even when the company is falling to pieces, simply because that's what the board and the company thought would drive success and were wrong.

Providing bonuses for the same execs that drove them to bankruptcy seems insane, but they're being graded on how well they liquidate the company. If they do a good job, the owners get paid more, so it's worth it to incentivise whomever is doing the selling.

I don't really see how any of this is out of place. *shrugs*
 
2012-11-29 02:44:16 PM  

pkellmey: If they needed incentives to keep high-level managers on to help close down the company, I really can't see a problem with this and predict the judge most likely won't either. From other companies that I am aware of that have liquidated, as long as they can justify the costs and no one did anything illegal or individually caused the problem, the courts allow it.


NO! Everyone who doesn't have Ding Dong fudge on his coveralls should be strung up by his Twinkie and pelted with SnoBalls until he Yodels!

or what you said. Come to think of it, what you said is better. Faux outrage is too hard.
 
2012-11-29 02:44:50 PM  
Fark the retention bonus. Regular base pay for sticking around, plus bonus for liquidation performance paid when it's all over.
 
2012-11-29 02:44:54 PM  
Let's try to put this in perspective....if you are a regular sort-of-joe (like myself) when you hear these salary/bonus numbers - you think 'WHAT!? ' So let's scale it down.

Say I'm the manager of a Mom & Pop restaurant that's just entered into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a legal status, it doesn't exactly mean they don't have any money. They've shut down two of the three locations, but they want to keep one operating to keep the brand alive and bring in buyers. They also need some staff to handle details of the sale, and possibly, to help train new workers, once someone buys the restaurant and the brand.

Sure, it sucks that some people lost their jobs. And sure, as a manager, I had more responsibilities and earned more than my subordinates....but (right or wrong), I have a valuable skillset and experience - I can go somewhere else and get a job as a restaurant manager.

Why would I keep going to work if I weren't getting paid?
I certainly wouldn't.

Most people here wouldn't.

Bankruptcy or not, lay-offs or not, I'm not showing up to a job unless I'm getting paid. That was true when I made minimum wage, and it would be true if I were making seven figures. Whatever job I have, it's on-par with other jobs I could get.

A lot of people are going to say, 'Sure Fark_Guy_Rob - but we're talking about BONUSES here! Not pay-checks' and I can sort of appreciate that. The thing is, when you reach a certain level or work in certain fields, compensation is largely bonus driven. I started working in the financial industry and I was surprised to learn my new job would have a contract that entitles me to a bonus. It will range from $X to $3X - and yes, it's kind of silly to call it a 'bonus' when I'm contractually obligated to receive a minimum amount. I'm still just a low-earning nobody, but people like my boss's boss earn the majority of their compensation in the form of a bonus.

If you were getting paid 10k in cash and 40k in bonuses - would you continue to work at 10k for six months while you handle the bankruptcy procedures for your restaurant - or would you just leave and get a new job that pays 10k in cash and....35k in bonuses (5k less because the economy is tough...)

I'd move. Absolutely I would.

It's kind of the same thing.
 
2012-11-29 02:45:19 PM  
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?
 
2012-11-29 02:45:25 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 02:45:50 PM  

toraque: That's an awful high salary just for liquidizing twinkies, I mean, I was able to do that with just a blender and a bunch of rum.

Not really sure what happened after that, but from what I'm told I threw up on someone's dog.


Well, at least you didn't open the door of a grandfather clock and piss in it, like I once did. To be fair, I was sleepwalking. No, seriously. But there's sleepwalking and sleepwalking while drunk.

/also peed in a dishwasher once, but at least it was my own
 
2012-11-29 02:46:10 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:46:13 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain American Way!


Bain was just the poster child for stufff that happenes everyday on Wall Street these days. You notice when they "reformed" the bankruptcy code in 2005 to make it harder for you, personally to wipe out things like massive credit card debt, they did absolutely nothing to reform Chapter 11 and reign in the looting of failing companies that execs routinely engage in?
 
2012-11-29 02:46:40 PM  
here's what I don't get. This is AMERICA. Why were these companies not raking in money hand over fist for selling processed sugars packaged with food-like synthetic chemical compounds designed to mimic the taste and texture of frosting, cream filling, and cake? WE'RE A NATION OF FAT PEOPLE!
 
2012-11-29 02:46:56 PM  
ya we get it, you're bitter because the best job you could muster involves saying "would you like fries with that?" it's not the rest of the worlds problem you didn't play your cards right or get a decent education, maybe you should've taken a real course instead of getting a degree in literature or arts.
 
2012-11-29 02:47:20 PM  

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!
 
2012-11-29 02:47:22 PM  

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.


Even if they bankrupt their clients with horrible stock picks?
 
2012-11-29 02:47:40 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!


But don't forget, they're the job creators. That's why it's imperative that they pay a much lower tax rate than the 47%.
 
2012-11-29 02:48:02 PM  

dickfreckle: toraque: That's an awful high salary just for liquidizing twinkies, I mean, I was able to do that with just a blender and a bunch of rum.

Not really sure what happened after that, but from what I'm told I threw up on someone's dog.

Well, at least you didn't open the door of a grandfather clock and piss in it, like I once did. To be fair, I was sleepwalking. No, seriously. But there's sleepwalking and sleepwalking while drunk.

/also peed in a dishwasher once, but at least it was my own


I knew I had a drinking problem when I woke up to find a human-sized turd in the cat's litter box.
 
2012-11-29 02:48:15 PM  

Djkb: $1,800,000 divided by 16,000 employees = $112.50

Or, a little more than half a day's wages.

BIG FARKIN' DEAL!!!!!


How many executives are getting these "bonuses" and why are they getting a "bonus" for farking up a company? It should be standard pay for retaining them, not a bonus.
 
2012-11-29 02:48:18 PM  

minoridiot: The suitors now include at least five national retailers such as supermarkets, a financial adviser for the company said in bankruptcy court.

I wonder if Walmart will try to purchase the brand.


Baked goods made in China? hmmmm. I can taste the sawdust and formaldehyde now.
 
2012-11-29 02:49:29 PM  

moefuggenbrew: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: What will be interesting is when one vulture company buys another

[i290.photobucket.com image 425x316]


well, I WAS going to post screencaps from Monty Python's Meaning of Life showing the corporate raiders and such, but, apparently Google is fresh out.
 
2012-11-29 02:49:47 PM  

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.


no you don't, brah
 
2012-11-29 02:50:29 PM  
tricycleracer

They're not analysts. They're junior traders. While the analyst bonuses have cratered in the past five years, it has not been the case with traders. These guys' bosses get at least seven figures as a bonus.
 
2012-11-29 02:50:59 PM  

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


What? And miss American Idol?

/fat people don't revolt
 
2012-11-29 02:51:10 PM  

mytdawg: Baked goods made in China? hmmmm. I can taste the sawdust and formaldehyde now.


dont forget melamine and lead
 
2012-11-29 02:51:11 PM  

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


Ah yes. They have contracts. And who signed those contracts on behalf of the corporation?

Why they did. They signed contracts with themselves.


Its good to be King, eh!
 
2012-11-29 02:51:23 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...


1. There are no qualified executives at Hostess. This is well-established.
2. You don't need huge bonuses to retain executives. There is what is called 'salary'.
3. You don't need former executives to liquidate a company.

Give me a break, man.
 
2012-11-29 02:51:23 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: 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?

Creating jobs, duh. As a job creator he needs to be rewarded for his difficult task in these harsh Obummer economic times.


yeah... i can see him explaining to the employees about his bonus...

"We deserve these bonuses because we worked hard to create these jobs. Oh yes, by the way, you are all fired."
 
2012-11-29 02:51:40 PM  

chrisco123: tricycleracer

They're not analysts. They're junior traders. While the analyst bonuses have cratered in the past five years, it has not been the case with traders. These guys' bosses get at least seven figures as a bonus.


If I invested there, I'd worry that my handling fees were too high if you're paying 22 year olds a half-mil a year to set a blue-chip fund on cruise control.
 
2012-11-29 02:51:45 PM  
Nobody has reason to be upset with these people because of the bargained for or negotiated compensation they will fairly receive.
 
2012-11-29 02:51:50 PM  
skullkrusher

no you don't, brah

yes I do, brah
 
2012-11-29 02:51:52 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Makh: They just couldn't compete in this economy. Little Debbie is still selling cloud cakes. Link

Pfft! No one bakes a cake as tasty as Tastykake.


I clicked on the link expecting:
Lazy town featuring lil jon NSFW
 
2012-11-29 02:51:57 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I knew I had a drinking problem when I woke up to find a human-sized turd in the cat's litter box.


I've always wanted to pull that prank, but just never got around to it. Life goes by so fast once you have a job and a house and all the other responsibilities. It's one of my few regrets in life.
 
2012-11-29 02:52:01 PM  

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


So the private equity fund that purchase Hostess is a vulture capital fund? The PE Fund run by Tim Collins?
 
2012-11-29 02:52:57 PM  

whistleridge: The judge can only rule if it's legal or not, not how vile or wrong it may be.


Not entire, a BK judge has some powers that a regular Judge doesn't, and has some duties to ensure that creditor's rights are protected and that management feees of a company in re-organization or liquidation are "reasonable". Especially in the case of a liquidation, the goal is create the maximum distribution to the creditors after liquidation
 
2012-11-29 02:53:20 PM  

tricycleracer: If I invested there, I'd worry that my handling fees were too high if you're paying 22 year olds a half-mil a year to set a blue-chip fund on cruise control.


Which is why you would invest elsewhere I suppose.
 
2012-11-29 02:54:09 PM  
Well, as long as the union employees can get curb-stomped into submission.
 
2012-11-29 02:54:24 PM  

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


Forget a torches and pitchforks mob. I am shocked that not even a single person has sneaked into any of these vulture CEOs houses and shot them in the head. I keep on waiting and waiting but it never happens. Though if I think if ever did happen it would be one of those shots heard around the world and there would copycats all over the place.
 
2012-11-29 02:54:26 PM  

doyner: sammyk: I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.

If you're over 25 you already have.

The method, already under intense criticism from opponents of capital punishment, drew more fire following Djandoubi's execution, when a doctor in attendance testified that Djandoubi remained responsive for up to 30 seconds after decapitation.

 

What do you suppose this means? His limbs were twitching or, his body-less head, was rolling around, barking "FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!"
 
2012-11-29 02:54:27 PM  

chrisco123: skullkrusher

no you don't, brah

yes I do, brah


no, seriously, you don't have 22 year old kids with bachelor's degrees working as junior traders expecting $400k bonuses on a trading desk. It's just not true.
 
2012-11-29 02:54:27 PM  
if you work without a contract you are a fool.

/is an at will employed fool
 
2012-11-29 02:54:54 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 02:55:20 PM  

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.


You. You are what's wrong with this country.
 
Ehh
2012-11-29 02:55:30 PM  

Hrist: If it goes through, I hope there's some good old fashioned union justice enacted.


Yeah, how is it that the wingnuts can't say "union" without "thug," and yet the dingdongs asking for those bonuses have working kneecaps?
 
2012-11-29 02:55:46 PM  

skullkrusher: 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.


So those first mates will go down with the ship, and even if they survive, won't be put in as captains of other-...

Oh, wait, no, they'll be totally fine.
 
2012-11-29 02:55:48 PM  

minoridiot: The suitors now include at least five national retailers such as supermarkets, a financial adviser for the company said in bankruptcy court.

I wonder if Walmart will try to purchase the brand.


I think they are all going to be Bimbos now....
 
2012-11-29 02:55:50 PM  
So in all serious, there is some (small) general defense of this, as I started to realize as I became a higher-level exec myself.

Being at the helm of a failing company or project is no fun. There's a pretty huge risk involved: mainly, that if you get associated and blamed for the failure, even if the disaster pre-dated you, your next job search is not very likely to result in a position anywhere close to the same level as what you had, which can permanently derail what would have been a stellar career trajectory. (Unless you're one of those near-celebrity CEOs who's so well-networked you never get blamed for anything.)

In order to be persuaded to try and turn the Titanic around, and to use bold (but perhaps risky) moves to do it, most want some kind of major incentive or guarantee. Either in the form of a substantial pay hike -- perhaps high enough to ensure you never need to work again for awhile if it really comes to that -- or some kind of golden parachute contract that ensures they still get something if the company goes belly-up. If they weren't to offer such things, no one would ever sign up to try saving these companies. It's generally a miserable experience, and the career risk is too high.

That being said, there are limits to taste. This particular example is pretty repugnant. When your chief issue is labor negotiations, rather than some kind of other systemic, market, or operational problem, you don't demand a pay hike after you take the job and during your discussions. That just makes you a giant dick, and a remarkably poor negotiator who should be terminated for what are arguably direct performance reasons.
 
2012-11-29 02:55:50 PM  

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.


No. It is not "a pittance" to anyone, living anywhere in the country, doing any job, with any level of education.

If you think $100K is "a pittance," than you are clearly one of the inept and out-of-touch plutocrats that caused the financial crisis that created our current recession, and all of our fiscal re-balancing SHOULD be done via increases in your taxation. You've earned it.

Also, anyone who thinks $100K is "a pittance" (like, oh, say Mitt Romney) shouldn't be allowed within 1,000 miles of a government appropriations decision. You clearly know NOTHING about the value of a dollar to the average American.
 
2012-11-29 02:55:57 PM  
How about instead of paying them bonuses to keep them working while the ship is sinking, we do what the cell phone companies do and tack on a ridiculous "early termination" fee if they quit?
 
2012-11-29 02:56:03 PM  
tricycleracer

If I invested there, I'd worry that my handling fees were too high if you're paying 22 year olds a half-mil a year to set a blue-chip fund on cruise control.

I don't know you and I mean no offence, but you are not the type of "investor" for whom they are trading.
 
2012-11-29 02:56:07 PM  
Really? what a farking crock of shiat. There should be no bonuses for those who drove Hostess into the ground.
 
2012-11-29 02:57:09 PM  
HAHAHAHA the jealousy in this thread is awsome
 
2012-11-29 02:58:09 PM  

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


Well, here's the union's golden opportunity to expose how incompetent and venal these scum-sucking managers are: invest the pension funds in buying the rights to produce the Hostess brands, and then show the world how a business should be run.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-29 02:58:14 PM  

chrisco123: tricycleracer

If I invested there, I'd worry that my handling fees were too high if you're paying 22 year olds a half-mil a year to set a blue-chip fund on cruise control.

I don't know you and I mean no offence, but you are not the type of "investor" for whom they are trading.


What's it with IT workers acting like they are in finance because they happen to work for a company with a trading desk?
 
2012-11-29 02:59:06 PM  

Kit Fister: here's what I don't get. This is AMERICA. Why were these companies not raking in money hand over fist for selling processed sugars packaged with food-like synthetic chemical compounds designed to mimic the taste and texture of frosting, cream filling, and cake? WE'RE A NATION OF FAT PEOPLE!


Because they had competition making the same kind of stuff cheaper.

WE'RE A NATION OF FAT CHEAP PEOPLE
 
2012-11-29 02:59:53 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: A lot of people are going to say, 'Sure Fark_Guy_Rob - but we're talking about BONUSES here! Not pay-checks' and I can sort of appreciate that. The thing is, when you reach a certain level or work in certain fields, compensation is largely bonus driven.


I think we found the problem.

So the solution is to actually pay people in SALARY - you know, the kind taxed at variable rates depending on the size of the pile at year's end - rather than in options or stocks - "things" which aren't currency, and so are taxed at only 15% (assuming they're held longer than a year). Perhaps this remunerative scheme for avoiding paying their fair share of taxes shouldn't be encouraged, and denying these greedy pricks (and the others like them) bonuses is a good way to get that abusive-to-the-system practice stopped.

That said, they're working for a failing company - if there's no money to pay into the pensions or to pay workers, why the hell should there be any money for "retention bonuses" at all? Both of those terms, to me, are less important than "Paying the salaries and pensions of people who have never seen $125k in a month, ever". That's not fair? YOU WORK AT A FAILING COMPANY. THE TIME FOR "FAIR" PASSED WHEN YOUR SURVIVABILITY INDEX HIT '0'.
 
2012-11-29 03:00:17 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.


Based on reading your contributions to fark over the years, I'm going to guess you don;t have an MBA and don't work in the executive suite of the company that prints your paycheck. As such, you qualify as the sort of "useful idiot" corporate execs and the GOP counts on to vote against their own self-interest.

50 years ago the average, fully-loaded wage in this country would be about $50/hr. I'm willing to bet you don't make anything close to that now. Hell, I barely beat the average, and I have a law degree. Want to know what changed the most dramatically between then and now?

Union Membership.
 
2012-11-29 03:00:20 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:00:44 PM  

Felgraf: skullkrusher: 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.

So those first mates will go down with the ship, and even if they survive, won't be put in as captains of other-...

Oh, wait, no, they'll be totally fine.


It's a wonder we have business in this country at all with all these incompetents just getting shuffled around eh?
 
2012-11-29 03:00:51 PM  
skullkrusher

no, seriously, you don't have 22 year old kids with bachelor's degrees working as junior traders expecting $400k bonuses on a trading desk. It's just not true.

It's totally true. The bonus is in addition to a roughly $80,000 salary that would not allow them to even live within 50 miles of the office. Sometimes its smaller, sometimes its bigger but this year its $400K.
 
2012-11-29 03:01:04 PM  

doyner: sammyk: I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.

If you're over 25 you already have.


35, not 25. Feel old yet?
 
2012-11-29 03:01:45 PM  

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

Well, here's the union's golden opportunity to expose how incompetent and venal these scum-sucking managers are: invest the pension funds in buying the rights to produce the Hostess brands, and then show the world how a business should be run.

[i48.tinypic.com image 300x298]


no no no, the worker's collectives must be organized at gunpoint. Getting like minded individuals together and starting a worker owned company just won't do.
 
2012-11-29 03:01:51 PM  

Elroydb: $1.8 million split between what nineteen people in top management for a company that takes in nearly $3 billion in revenues? Many of these execs only make $1 salary and rely on bonuses and stock options for payment. Obviously it was the $1.8 million in bonuses and not the $700 million a year being paid out to retired people for pension and health benefits. That is $700 million in costs to people who are no longer producing for your company. On top of that you gotta pay all the bills as well as salary. I guess if they gave that money back they could write a check to all the employees for $100.


except that you fail to see this is a BONUS on top of their regular salary. They even mention that the head guy is pulling down 125k a month. So that 1.8Million is split bonus money, and who wants to bet that the majority of that bonus money goes to 2 or 3 people and not split evenly between the 19. So while some CEOs do they $1 salary PR move these guys certainly did not.
 
2012-11-29 03:01:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:02:02 PM  

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.


I agree... not relevant for the last 200 years...

Gotta get me some of those unsafe conditions, and child labor, and slave pay, etc... 

/I know i shouldn't feed the trolls, but... everybody has to eat.
 
2012-11-29 03:03:08 PM  

chrisco123: tricycleracer

They're not analysts. They're junior traders. While the analyst bonuses have cratered in the past five years, it has not been the case with traders. These guys' bosses get at least seven figures as a bonus.


And that's kind of the point: financial services workers make this kind of money by simply MOVING large amounts of money in order to create the illusion of wealth.

Wall Street produces nothing. They simply act as a middleman between business and capital.

People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.
 
2012-11-29 03:03:14 PM  

chrisco123: skullkrusher

no, seriously, you don't have 22 year old kids with bachelor's degrees working as junior traders expecting $400k bonuses on a trading desk. It's just not true.

It's totally true. The bonus is in addition to a roughly $80,000 salary that would not allow them to even live within 50 miles of the office. Sometimes its smaller, sometimes its bigger but this year its $400K.


where? You don't have to give an actual name but what business? Hedge fund, bank, what?

I know Wharton grads busting their asses in M&A at major i-banks who didn't start making that sort of money until their late 20s
 
2012-11-29 03:03:26 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...


and nothing in those bonuses requires them to stay. it's just HOPED that they will, and given their track record i see no evidence that ANY of those executives could perform the not-to-difficult task of shutting the company down and selling off its assets any more ably than a court-appointed reciever would.
 
2012-11-29 03:05:16 PM  

Magorn: 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...

and nothing in those bonuses requires them to stay. it's just HOPED that they will, and given their track record i see no evidence that ANY of those executives could perform the not-to-difficult task of shutting the company down and selling off its assets any more ably than a court-appointed reciever would.



Probably contingent on staying till the end. That you could definitely write into a contract.
 
2012-11-29 03:05:21 PM  

skullkrusher: pkellmey: If they needed incentives to keep high-level managers on to help close down the company, I really can't see a problem with this and predict the judge most likely won't either. From other companies that I am aware of that have liquidated, as long as they can justify the costs and no one did anything illegal or individually caused the problem, the courts allow it.

NO! Everyone who doesn't have Ding Dong fudge on his coveralls should be strung up by his Twinkie and pelted with SnoBalls until he Yodels!

or what you said. Come to think of it, what you said is better. Faux outrage is too hard.


I don't swing that way
 
2012-11-29 03:05:51 PM  

udhq: People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.


grow up
 
2012-11-29 03:06:19 PM  

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


Ah this idiot again. A person not understanding what going into bankruptcy does to ALL a company's contracts, including employment ones for senior execs. Also not understand that these are not contractually required bonuses but EXTRA money the company wants to give these people to incentivize them not to quit, because of the mythical harm that would supposedly do the company
 
2012-11-29 03:06:42 PM  

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?


I saw a few of them say they thought the company was bluffing. Question - how much are the union bosses getting paid? They still have jobs with the union right? Why no blame on them?
 
2012-11-29 03:06:59 PM  
Most people who get paid by the hour have no understanding of how things work in the executive world. All they see are a handful of dudes in suits making bank and gosh darn it that's not fair!
 
2012-11-29 03:07:01 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:07:27 PM  

Der Poopflinger: ya we get it, you're bitter because the best job you could muster involves saying "would you like fries with that?" it's not the rest of the worlds problem you didn't play your cards right or get a decent education, maybe you should've taken a real course instead of getting a degree in literature or arts.


was that directed at someone or the article, or perhaps the clouds?
 
2012-11-29 03:07:59 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Most people who get paid by the hour have no understanding of how things work in the executive world. All they see are a handful of dudes in suits making bank and gosh darn it that's not fair!


exactly
 
2012-11-29 03:08:04 PM  

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?


They're GOP contributors.
 
2012-11-29 03:09:03 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: was that directed at someone or the article, or perhaps the clouds?


all the whiners in the thread and maybe the one cloud
 
2012-11-29 03:09:13 PM  
That's a big Twinkie
 
2012-11-29 03:09:27 PM  
skullkrusher

Hedge fund. London. I just spoke to one...He's 23 in January.
 
2012-11-29 03:10:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:10:25 PM  

chrisco123: skullkrusher

Hedge fund. London. I just spoke to one...He's 23 in January.


well good for those mofos
 
2012-11-29 03:11:46 PM  
I really believe that everyone should go back and re-read Ayn Rand.

I know she's become a bit of a Rorschach test to people like Paul Ryan who see what they want to see in objectivism, and use her writing to justify their own sociopathy, but there really is something worthwhile there.

Contrary to her right-wing fanboys, the bad guys in her books are not the poor; they are the financial and managerial class who skim wealth off the top without producing anything or adding any value. The execs in tfa are non-producing parasites who literally stole from the employee's self-funded pension in order to fund these bonuses. The workers, on the other hand, are producers acting in a perfect expression of rational self-interest.
 
2012-11-29 03:11:58 PM  

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

How does a cupcake company build up $1 billion in debt? DAMN YOU UNIONS!!!!


Sell cupcakes that cost more to make than your selling them for?

Rinse and repeat?

I think that how economics work - slept through that semester. Yawn.
 
2012-11-29 03:11:59 PM  

skullkrusher: chrisco123: skullkrusher

Hedge fund. London. I just spoke to one...He's 23 in January.

well good for those mofos


I think you're supposed to be mad he makes more then someone older then him
 
2012-11-29 03:12:28 PM  

mytdawg: minoridiot: The suitors now include at least five national retailers such as supermarkets, a financial adviser for the company said in bankruptcy court.

I wonder if Walmart will try to purchase the brand.

Baked goods made in China? hmmmm. I can taste the sawdust and formaldehyde now.


I'd lay money that everything's gonna get bought up by the Mexican baking giant Bimbo. The already have the rights to produce Wonder Bread, and they make a whole line of very similar snack cakes that Wal-mart already carries
 
2012-11-29 03:13:28 PM  

chrisco123: skullkrusher

no, seriously, you don't have 22 year old kids with bachelor's degrees working as junior traders expecting $400k bonuses on a trading desk. It's just not true.

It's totally true. The bonus is in addition to a roughly $80,000 salary that would not allow them to even live within 50 miles of the office. Sometimes its smaller, sometimes its bigger but this year its $400K.


They need find a better broker if they can't get a decent place for 50K quid within 50 miles of the river.
 
2012-11-29 03:13:56 PM  
1. The Hostess brands still have significant value
2. Bankruptcy and liquidation of assets, as well as the sale of the brands, requires skilled, knowledgeable people
3. Outside of rentention bonuses, these people will have little reason to stick around a company with no future
4. The difference they can make with regards to the value of the companies assets will likely far exceed 1.8 million

I know it is galling to many, but experienced, capable executives with familiarity with companies of this size are not common, and are in high demand. Their impact on companies far exceeds the impact of a common production worker, so they are compensated accordingly. They typically are in high demand, so they do receive attractive compensation and severance packages. And yes, some of the companies they lead will fail (in a zero sum game, some businesses will have to fail if some succeed, though I know business is not exactly zero sum).
 
2012-11-29 03:14:45 PM  
This is on Little Debbie's home page.

www.littledebbie.com

/MaximumTrolling.jpg
 
2012-11-29 03:15:33 PM  

Der Poopflinger: HindiDiscoMonster: was that directed at someone or the article, or perhaps the clouds?

all the whiners in the thread and maybe the one cloud


aaah ok... thanks for the clarification...

/For the record... that one cloud... it did look like it was eying you.
 
2012-11-29 03:17:10 PM  
when I spent $17 on 4 huge bags of liquidation goodies Monday at the local bakery, was I helping to pay these bonuses?

/takes bite out of Zinger
//wipes mouth with a Honey Bun
 
2012-11-29 03:17:23 PM  

skullkrusher: udhq: People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.

grow up


Or, you know, YOU could take some responsibility for yourself. But that's probably out of the question, isn't it?

Or do you think 0.2% is really all the money in your savings is actually earning your bank? At that rate, your money is better off in a bolted down, fireproof safe in your basement.
 
2012-11-29 03:17:45 PM  
Moopy Mac

They need find a better broker if they can't get a decent place for 50K quid within 50 miles of the river.

I was being a bit facetious with the 50-mile figure. It's that they know a bonus is coming an, at such a tender age, want to live a little closer to the, how shall I put it, action?
 
2012-11-29 03:17:59 PM  

imtheonlylp: when I spent $17 on 4 huge bags of liquidation goodies Monday at the local bakery, was I helping to pay these bonuses?

/takes bite out of Zinger
//wipes mouth with a Honey Bun


I friggin love those things...
 
2012-11-29 03:18:51 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: "How does a cupcake company build up $1 billion in debt?"

They got busted out. Vulture capitalism by the book:
Buy company.
Use their good name to load up on debt.
Pay yourselves *fabulously*.
Cut employee benefits to attempt to make debt payments.

Working out? Add more debt, repeat.
Not working out? File bankruptcy.
Feeling ballsy? Blame the employees for the whole thing, pointing out their compensation is the only thing keeping the books from being balanced.
Company still viable after bankruptcy? Add more debt.
 
2012-11-29 03:19:23 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.


Tell you what, when your employer comes to you and lets you know that he's taking your middle-class job with a pension and turning it into a minimum-wage job with no pension...well, be sure to stick around. It would be just unpatriotic to have a future or be able to pay bills, now wouldn't it?
 
2012-11-29 03:21:06 PM  

bruegel: 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?

I saw a few of them say they thought the company was bluffing. Question - how much are the union bosses getting paid? They still have jobs with the union right? Why no blame on them?


You're right. I thought it was just common-knowledge those union advisors were self-serving morons. Even as someone who never followed the story and hadn't bought a Hostess product in years, it was obvious when the story came to a head the company wasn't bluffing.

Strikes don't work in this employment climate. They should have knuckled under and found different jobs while getting paid.
 
2012-11-29 03:21:22 PM  

udhq: skullkrusher: udhq: People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.

grow up

Or, you know, YOU could take some responsibility for yourself. But that's probably out of the question, isn't it?

Or do you think 0.2% is really all the money in your savings is actually earning your bank? At that rate, your money is better off in a bolted down, fireproof safe in your basement.


I meant grow up in terms of calling people "parasites" makes you sound like a child
 
2012-11-29 03:21:34 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 03:22:30 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: imtheonlylp: when I spent $17 on 4 huge bags of liquidation goodies Monday at the local bakery, was I helping to pay these bonuses?

/takes bite out of Zinger
//wipes mouth with a Honey Bun

I friggin love those things...


you should've seen the motherload I hauled off from that place Monday...my kids thought I was running a monosaccharide cartel
 
2012-11-29 03:22:55 PM  

Der Poopflinger: skullkrusher: chrisco123: skullkrusher

Hedge fund. London. I just spoke to one...He's 23 in January.

well good for those mofos

I think you're supposed to be mad he makes more then someone older then him


not in the slightest
 
2012-11-29 03:23:00 PM  
And this is what happens when the People refuse to round up and decapitate the rich.

www.herodote.net
 
2012-11-29 03:23:40 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...


I'll do it for 50k
 
2012-11-29 03:24:02 PM  

TV's Vinnie: And this is what happens when the People refuse to round up and decapitate the rich.

[www.herodote.net image 355x367]


ok, I give up. Who is the Vinnie from TV that you are supposed to be? Barbarino? He was really dumb. Is it him?
 
2012-11-29 03:24:37 PM  

moefuggenbrew: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: What will be interesting is when one vulture company buys another

[i290.photobucket.com image 425x316]


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-29 03:24:42 PM  

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


Wait till they start coming for our Social Security money. People of all political affiliations are sure to go batshiat then.
 
2012-11-29 03:24:44 PM  
To all you hostess employees, you paid far more than this in annual union dues and look what it got you.
 
2012-11-29 03:25:43 PM  

TV's Vinnie: And this is what happens when the People refuse to round up and decapitate the rich.

[www.herodote.net image 355x367]


Let them eat cake?
 
2012-11-29 03:25:51 PM  
Good!
Damn union screwed them up!
 
2012-11-29 03:27:58 PM  

Magorn: I'd lay money that everything's gonna get bought up by the Mexican baking giant Bimbo.


Looking forward to the first Mexican Twinkie with a severed finger from a dismembered drug cartel member in it.

i.ytimg.com
"WE HAVE A WINNER!"
 
2012-11-29 03:30:42 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:31:02 PM  
If Twinkies went the way of the Dodo, wouldn't we be better off in the long run?

Capitalism is trying to help your fat asses, and you don't see it.
 
2012-11-29 03:31:27 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!


The employees shafted everyone.

Getting paid $100/hour to push a button on the assembly line.
 
2012-11-29 03:31:42 PM  

udhq: No. It is not "a pittance" to anyone, living anywhere in the country, doing any job, with any level of education.

If you think $100K is "a pittance," than you are clearly one of the inept and out-of-touch plutocrats that caused the financial crisis that created our current recession, and all of our fiscal re-balancing SHOULD be done via increases in your taxation. You've earned it.

Also, anyone who thinks $100K is "a pittance" (like, oh, say Mitt Romney) shouldn't be allowed within 1,000 miles of a government appropriations decision. You clearly know NOTHING about the value of a dollar to the average American.


$100,000 is not a pittance as it stands by itself. That's not what people are saying. They're saying that it's a trivial amount when compared to the expected compensation for an executive of a very large company. It's also a trivial amount when compared to the budget of a large company. It may seem unfair that the executives are getting this bonus when everyone else is losing their jobs, but in the overall scheme of things, the bonus isn't even enough to give the workers who lose their jobs a couple of days' severance. And it IS important to keep the executives on board to finish up the liquidation. Otherwise they would leave as soon as they found a new job since their job security is now zero.
 
2012-11-29 03:31:59 PM  

skullkrusher: udhq: skullkrusher: udhq: People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.

grow up

Or, you know, YOU could take some responsibility for yourself. But that's probably out of the question, isn't it?

Or do you think 0.2% is really all the money in your savings is actually earning your bank? At that rate, your money is better off in a bolted down, fireproof safe in your basement.

I meant grow up in terms of calling people "parasites" makes you sound like a child


I apologize. You sound sensitive. You get called "a parasite" a lot?
 
2012-11-29 03:32:06 PM  

Djkb: $1,800,000 divided by 16,000 employees = $112.50

Or, a little more than half a day's wages.

BIG FARKIN' DEAL!!!!!


Please send me a check for $112.50.
 
2012-11-29 03:32:39 PM  
I guess that what I'm going to have to accept is that every executive in every company is highly sought after, highly mobile, and is always a blackberry message away from jumping ship. You cannot retain an executive to finish a job for a fixed period based on salary, and there are infinite jobs open for executives at all times.

Fascinating.
 
2012-11-29 03:32:51 PM  

slayer199: How a company can reward executives for poor performance is beyond me. Then again, the union members would have had 25% of the company and 2 seats on the board so they could have fought this sort of crap.


Poor performance? Paying your workers too much is poor performance?
 
2012-11-29 03:33:07 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 03:33:16 PM  

udhq: skullkrusher: udhq: skullkrusher: udhq: People should move their money to a local credit union, and not allow these parasites to skim off the top.

grow up

Or, you know, YOU could take some responsibility for yourself. But that's probably out of the question, isn't it?

Or do you think 0.2% is really all the money in your savings is actually earning your bank? At that rate, your money is better off in a bolted down, fireproof safe in your basement.

I meant grow up in terms of calling people "parasites" makes you sound like a child

I apologize. You sound sensitive. You get called "a parasite" a lot?


nah, only around here and considering those throwing the names it isn't too worrisome.
 
2012-11-29 03:33:43 PM  

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
 
2012-11-29 03:34:10 PM  

baka-san: What I found truly horrible is that I just went "one point eight mil...is that all?"

Used to them getting 50 mil and up a piece.


1.8M for 19 people, which is $94,000 a person for a year.
 
2012-11-29 03:34:39 PM  

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
 
2012-11-29 03:35:58 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?


A hell of a lot more than the former gang members playing with an inflated rubber ball on TV each Sunday who make hundreds of times more.
 
2012-11-29 03:37:11 PM  

slayer199: Weaver95: And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!

No, but I have to wonder that if the Baker's Union took the deal and perhaps pushed the Teamsters to take a similar deal (stake in the company and seats on the board) if they couldn't have blocked these bonuses.

Really though, the board and stockholders are to blame for rewarding poor management with bonuses. The union does have some culpability in Hostess' demise...but poor leadership at the top is the root cause.


The teamsters did take the deal. And the union has 100% responsibility, unless paying workers too much money is "poor leadership".
 
2012-11-29 03:37:46 PM  

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

How does a cupcake company build up $1 billion in debt? DAMN YOU UNIONS!!!!


Operating with debt is a very standard practice in all companies. The debt is usually linked to your net profit. Often times, debt is needed to fund growth (most businesses have a positive asset intensity, so growth in revenue requires capital). Sometimes, it is used defensively (a company that has debt on its books will not be a target for an LBO). Sometimes, the debt is revolving credit used to bridge the gap between AR and AP. Like at the 10K statements of some major corporations, they are all carrying debt.
 
2012-11-29 03:37:57 PM  

wmanning833: To all you hostess employees, you paid far more than this in annual union dues and look what it got you.


As one employee said recently, it will be hard to replace the jobs they had, but not to replace the jobs management had offered them to keep the company in business.

The employees/union had nothing to lose by rejecting the concessions. It will be MUCH easier for them to replace their jobs, then for these executives to find similar ones. Especially when the last thing on your resume is "Ran an internationally beloved brand into the ground."
 
2012-11-29 03:38:45 PM  

Bullseyed: The employees shafted everyone.

Getting paid $100/hour to push a button on the assembly line.


Even at your ridiculously false $100/hour figure, that worker would still make one million dollars less than the CEO of the now bankrupt company will make next year.
 
2012-11-29 03:38:53 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-29 03:38:56 PM  

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


Why? Because the executives quadrupled their pay 24 months ago took on too much bank debt and drove the company into the ground?

Thats not how it works. They were glorious job creators who earned those princely sums by taking risks and the bad unions killed the company

Try to keep up
 
2012-11-29 03:39:03 PM  

Bullseyed: 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?

A hell of a lot more than the former gang members playing with an inflated rubber ball on TV each Sunday who make hundreds of times more.


not really - those guys earn a whole bunch of money for the organizations they play for
 
2012-11-29 03:40:26 PM  

Rev.K: Bullseyed: The employees shafted everyone.

Getting paid $100/hour to push a button on the assembly line.

Even at your ridiculously false $100/hour figure, that worker would still make one million dollars less than the CEO of the now bankrupt company will make next year.


so what? Honestly, who gives a shiat?
 
2012-11-29 03:40:50 PM  

doyner: Thank God! I was worried about those guys!


We have to protect the job creators destroyers!

FTFM
 
2012-11-29 03:41:15 PM  

factoryconnection: I guess that what I'm going to have to accept is that every executive in every company is highly sought after, highly mobile, and is always a blackberry message away from jumping ship. You cannot retain an executive to finish a job for a fixed period based on salary, and there are infinite jobs open for executives at all times.

Fascinating.


Right?

"We need that money as incentive to stay on board!"
"Unless we pay you more, you're not going to work? Isn't that extortion?"
"No, I'm demanding my bonus. I'm a loyal and valued employee! I make decisions that have a huge impact on the company! My income is based on stocks and options, including stakes in this very company! I'm loyal!"
"So loyal that you'll jump ship if you don't get your money? Your decision-making was that good that you're helming a sinking company, and you think you're entitled to bonus pay?"

We need that "Joe CEO" show to have some of these bozos actually work those jobs for a year, complete with all the "negotiating" they think low-level employees (can) engage in prior to taking the job. Make $7.50/hour for the full year, have requests for a $.50/hour raise laughed out of the room (a friend was "kindly offered" a $.15/hour raise by the Home Depot after working there a year), have absolutely no leverage to get anything, no bonus, no vaycay time, low-level health plans, your only retirement planning is the pittance you put into the ol' 401(k) (assuming you can afford to invest 5% of every month's income on it), few prospects for promotion and other jobs have 40 applicants each.

Then they can argue all they want for their goodies.
 
2012-11-29 03:42:17 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Let's try to put this in perspective....if you are a regular sort-of-joe (like myself) when you hear these salary/bonus numbers - you think 'WHAT!? ' So let's scale it down ...
If you were getting paid 10k in cash and 40k in bonuses - would you continue to work a ...


OK, so you're saying that competition leads to higher compensation. The question is, what are these executive turds doing that nobody else can? Or is it just a Good Ol' Boys network?
 
2012-11-29 03:42:22 PM  

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
 
2012-11-29 03:42:37 PM  
With no Twinkies to eat, instead lets  www.ptarmigannest.net

They're tender and well marbled.
 
2012-11-29 03:42:46 PM  
I think stubby failed English class
 
2012-11-29 03:43:02 PM  
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")
 
2012-11-29 03:43:16 PM  
Top CEO salary was reduced to $1 + bonuses as of May 1, 2012 and was to remain at that level until the company came out of bankruptcy or until December 1, 2012, which ever came first.

So $1.8 million / 19 CEO's = mean income of just under $95,000 since May, which works out to a $163,00 annual salary.

Given the average baker was making between $45,000 and $50,000 during that same period, the top CEO's were paid within an approximate 3.5 to 1 ratio.

A 3.5 to 1 ratio is very good. Better than the much praised Ben & Jerry's salary ratio of 5 to 1 first announced in 1990. Of course, B & J later increased that to 7 to 1, and eventually eliminated all salary ratios guidelines in 2010.

While $1.8 million sounds like a large chunck of money, it is within a 3.5 to 1 ratio and is very reasonable.
 
2012-11-29 03:43:19 PM  

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?


I bet your highest level of employment is fry cook at McDonalds and you have a degree in theater from a state college.


How much money did the union leaders get for driving the company into bankruptcy?
 
2012-11-29 03:43:45 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.


what are they gonna do ? It isn't like CIO, CEO and CFO jobs are in abundance. Even President and VP level folks aren't usually going to go from that position to the same or equivalent in other companies. They should be thankful they have a job that continues to pay them and their benefits. They can look for work while they close up shop, that is what all these folks are going to be doing anyway. You think these folks who know their job is gonna end won't be looking for work before the $$ runs out ?
 
2012-11-29 03:43:50 PM  

Magorn: whistleridge: The judge can only rule if it's legal or not, not how vile or wrong it may be.

Not entire, a BK judge has some powers that a regular Judge doesn't, and has some duties to ensure that creditor's rights are protected and that management feees of a company in re-organization or liquidation are "reasonable". Especially in the case of a liquidation, the goal is create the maximum distribution to the creditors after liquidation


That's a process defined by law, not repugnance. The judge in question may very well personally want to deny that CEO every penny, but be strictly bound by the terms of the contract. Yes, he/she can weigh and balance things, but they can't just say 'this is wrong, sorry, no money for you', which is what the headline is implying should actually be happening.

Or put another way: blame the board, blame greed, blame our diseased corporate culture, but don't blame the poor judge. They're just an overworked soul doing a thankless job for nowhere near the sorts of money being talked about here. That CEO probably makes more in a week than the judge will make in a year.
 
2012-11-29 03:43:59 PM  
And when Hostess outsources their yellowcake enrichment production to Iran you'll all be begging for the Ding-Dong bailout that never came. Way to go America!
 
2012-11-29 03:44:15 PM  

giftedmadness: I think stubby failed English class


that's unpossible
 
2012-11-29 03:45:02 PM  

Magorn: As if there WERE other jobs avaialble right then in a financial secotr in which investment banks were falling like dominoes, and as if anyone would (or should) hire someone with the stink of AIG's FAIL still lingering on them.


Intelligent people will always have/find jobs.

#inconvenienttruth
 
2012-11-29 03:46:27 PM  

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?


It sounds like the average intelligence level for a union worker is starting to dawn on you.

Pressing a button on an assembly line shouldn't merit any pay, much less the $80-$100 an hour most union workers get.
 
2012-11-29 03:46:35 PM  

udhq: wmanning833: To all you hostess employees, you paid far more than this in annual union dues and look what it got you.

As one employee said recently, it will be hard to replace the jobs they had, but not to replace the jobs management had offered them to keep the company in business.

The employees/union had nothing to lose by rejecting the concessions. It will be MUCH easier for them to replace their jobs, then for these executives to find similar ones. Especially when the last thing on your resume is "Ran an internationally beloved brand into the ground."


This.
People act like the employees were being asked to take a very small pay and benefit cut. They weren't. Like one lady said, in 2005 she made 48k and then the employees agreed to take a pay cut that left her earning 34k last year. With this new pay cut that Hostess was proposing, in 5 years she would be making 25k. Plus there is also the matter of the pension money that Hostess borrowed from the employees and now claims that they can't pay back.

So all of you screaming that the Unions destroyed hostess, and the employees made their own beds by not taking the pay cut, would you have taken a pay cut that would have resulted in your yearly salary being 25k in 5 years, when your yearly salary was 48k 7 years ago, and you had already agreed to a pay cut that reduced your salary from 48k to 34k?
 
2012-11-29 03:46:41 PM  

Bullseyed: 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?

I bet your highest level of employment is fry cook at McDonalds and you have a degree in theater from a state college.


How much money did the union leaders get for driving the company into bankruptcy?


The union's job is to advocate for its members. Management's job is to make sure the company keeps in business. I may as well ask what management gets for forcing people out of work.

// $1.8 mil divided 19 ways, apparently
// or I could ask why management signed such a shiatty deal in the first place - did they not know it was shiatty (in which case, they're hardly worth an extra ~$2mil), or not care (in which case, fark 'em twice)?
 
2012-11-29 03:47:09 PM  
So many arm chair CEOs... If you can do better, i hear they are for sale.
 
2012-11-29 03:48:29 PM  

ongbok: This.
People act like the employees were being asked to take a very small pay and benefit cut. They weren't. Like one lady said, in 2005 she made 48k and then the employees agreed to take a pay cut that left her earning 34k last year. With this new pay cut that Hostess was proposing, in 5 years she would be making 25k. Plus there is also the matter of the pension money that Hostess borrowed from the employees and now claims that they can't pay back.

So all of you screaming that the Unions destroyed hostess, and the employees made their own beds by not taking the pay cut, would you have taken a pay cut that would have resulted in your yearly salary being 25k in 5 years, when your yearly salary was 48k 7 years ago, and you had already agreed to a pay cut that reduced your salary from 48k to 34k?


The problem is, on Fark, if you aren't an engineer, you deserve minimum wage.
 
2012-11-29 03:48:32 PM  

Djkb: $1,800,000 divided by 16,000 employees = $112.50

Or, a little more than half a day's wages.

BIG FARKIN' DEAL!!!!!


If you're unemployed, an extra $112 at Christmas time is a BFD.
 
2012-11-29 03:48:41 PM  

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

Why? Because the executives quadrupled their pay 24 months ago took on too much bank debt and drove the company into the ground?

Thats not how it works. They were glorious job creators who earned those princely sums by taking risks and the bad unions killed the company

Try to keep up


I have not been following this issue that closely, but I am confused by your implications. Is there an indication that taking on debt was not linked to an unhealthy P and L, which could be linked to high costs?

Also, doing some basic math, if they had 18,000 employees, and let's just assume an average cost per employee of around $70K, then their payroll would have been at around $1.26 billion. That is a much more significant costs than executive salaries. If the unions were increasing (through benefits, or above market wages) costs by even 10%, then you are talking about 120 million a year. So, yeah, unions could have been a factor
 
2012-11-29 03:48:47 PM  

Djkb: $1,800,000 divided by 16,000 employees = $112.50

Or, a little more than half a day's wages.

BIG FARKIN' DEAL!!!!!


images.persephonemagazine.com
 
2012-11-29 03:49:14 PM  

Kit Fister: here's what I don't get. This is AMERICA. Why were these companies not raking in money hand over fist for selling processed sugars packaged with food-like synthetic chemical compounds designed to mimic the taste and texture of frosting, cream filling, and cake? WE'RE A NATION OF FAT PEOPLE!


The price flexibility of such products is zero. You cannot increase prices or no one will buy your product.

Unions demand that you keep paying workers long after they've quit or retired. This means each year even if you keep your workforce the same, your costs increase exponentially.

In a few years, you're making no profit. A few years after that and you're losing money and covering with debt. Right after that is bankruptcy.
 
2012-11-29 03:49:24 PM  
This whole Hostess thing sucks!!! I want my Butternut Autumn Wheat Bread back!!!
 
2012-11-29 03:50:55 PM  

tricycleracer: chrisco123: tricycleracer

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.

Even if they bankrupt their clients with horrible stock picks?


How could you bankrupt someone with bad stock picks? Anyone who is investing 100% of their net worth in the stock market is a moron, not to mention that they'd have to have zero income and be relying solely on capital gains.
 
2012-11-29 03:52:29 PM  

JeffreyScott: A 3.5 to 1 ratio is very good. Better than the much praised Ben & Jerry's salary ratio of 5 to 1 first announced in 1990. Of course, B & J later increased that to 7 to 1, and eventually eliminated all salary ratios guidelines in 2010.

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


I disagree with the bold parts.
 
2012-11-29 03:54:38 PM  

Rev.K: Bullseyed: The employees shafted everyone.

Getting paid $100/hour to push a button on the assembly line.

Even at your ridiculously false $100/hour figure, that worker would still make one million dollars less than the CEO of the now bankrupt company will make next year.


18,000 current employees* $100/hour * 40 hours a week * 52 weeks a year = $3,744,000,000 per year
Annual revenue = $3,200,000,000

Easy to see why they were struggling.
 
2012-11-29 03:54:56 PM  
Ah, capitalism.

I love how we still suck its dick in the supposedly enlightened 21st century.

Can't talk about being out of work, or hating on corporations that treat workers like shiat.

Because it would be rude, or something.
 
2012-11-29 03:55:35 PM  
@TV's Vinnie: Hate to break it to you, but you're "rich" to that vast majority of the worlds population. Get in line for your loppin'.  http://www.globalrichlist.com/
 
2012-11-29 03:55:48 PM  

Bullseyed: 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?

I bet your highest level of employment is fry cook at McDonalds and you have a degree in theater from a state college.


How much money did the union leaders get for driving the company into bankruptcy?


If union leaders had more influence on the well-being of the company than management, then you are beginning with the assumption of absolute incompetence at every level of management.

And I'm not even arguing the bonuses are out of line. I just think they should have to repay every cent they stole from the employee-paid pension fund first. They clearly knew they were headed for liquidation when they started "borrowing" from it in the first place.
 
2012-11-29 03:57:18 PM  

kindms: what are they gonna do ? It isn't like CIO, CEO and CFO jobs are in abundance.


All the evidence anyone needs to know you don't know what you're talking about.
 
2012-11-29 03:59:29 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // or I could ask why management signed such a shiatty deal in the first place - did they not know it was shiatty (in which case, they're hardly worth an extra ~$2mil), or not care (in which case, fark 'em twice)?


So what you're saying is you don't know how unions and laws governing unions work.
 
2012-11-29 03:59:30 PM  

tricycleracer: ongbok: This.
People act like the employees were being asked to take a very small pay and benefit cut. They weren't. Like one lady said, in 2005 she made 48k and then the employees agreed to take a pay cut that left her earning 34k last year. With this new pay cut that Hostess was proposing, in 5 years she would be making 25k. Plus there is also the matter of the pension money that Hostess borrowed from the employees and now claims that they can't pay back.

So all of you screaming that the Unions destroyed hostess, and the employees made their own beds by not taking the pay cut, would you have taken a pay cut that would have resulted in your yearly salary being 25k in 5 years, when your yearly salary was 48k 7 years ago, and you had already agreed to a pay cut that reduced your salary from 48k to 34k?

The problem is, on Fark, if you aren't an engineer, you deserve minimum wage.


And half of the people on Fark who are claiming to be engineers and who are shiatting on other people's professions, aren't engineers themselves. They are probably CSA's and data entry clerks who went to school for engineering but left after the first year because they couldn't hack it.

And I personally think that Bullseyed once held a nice union job and was fired, probably for gross incompetence or maybe some type of inappropriate behavior, and now holds a grudge against all unions, because he was dumb enough to believe that whatever you do you can't get fired from a union job, and thinks they were just out to get him. This is why he continually tells lies and complete exaggerations about unions any time a union is mentioned in a thread.
 
2012-11-29 04:00:04 PM  

whidbey: Ah, capitalism.

I love how we still suck its dick in the supposedly enlightened 21st century.

Can't talk about being out of work, or hating on corporations that treat workers like shiat.

Because it would be rude, or something.


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
 
2012-11-29 04:00:39 PM  

Weaver95: raerae1980: T What are the grounds for allowing these bonuses for Hostess execs to be approved?

because they're rich! plus, ya know, unions.


Politicians are wealthy
Judges are wealthy
Corporate executives are wealthy.
Shareholders are wealthy

The "morality" of the wealthy is to scratch each others backs FIRST, even if there is no direct gain in money or power at the time because their brains have become wired to be totally incapable of empathy to those outside their social circle.
 
2012-11-29 04:00:40 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]


You know that chart is not only incorrect, but it was made by a group of undergrads who didn't even cite their sources, right? It's going to hurt your argument, not help it.

The real ratio is a more obscenely sedate 185:1 or so.
 
2012-11-29 04:01:22 PM  
Boy the Unions got the last laugh on this one!! 

www.friendlyflutes.co.uk
 
2012-11-29 04:02:30 PM  

Bullseyed: Dr Dreidel: // or I could ask why management signed such a shiatty deal in the first place - did they not know it was shiatty (in which case, they're hardly worth an extra ~$2mil), or not care (in which case, fark 'em twice)?

So what you're saying is you don't know how unions and laws governing unions work.


Enlighten me.
 
2012-11-29 04:06:07 PM  
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).
 
2012-11-29 04:07:26 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).


So what law was broken?
 
2012-11-29 04:08:08 PM  

whidbey: Ah, capitalism.

I love how we still suck its dick in the supposedly enlightened 21st century.

Can't talk about being out of work, or hating on corporations that treat workers like shiat.

Because it would be rude, or something.


Please enlighten us on how your Utopia would be structured. Would everyone get a unicorn? Would decisions be made only if 100% of the population agree? The world waits with bated breath.
 
2012-11-29 04:08:34 PM  

Joe Blowme: -Friedman


If there's anyone who needs to be the victim of his own farked up ideology, it's him.
 
2012-11-29 04:08:55 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...


Yep. The creditors did not object to the bonuses.

Question is.....why isn't the union trying to buy the company?
 
2012-11-29 04:09:01 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]


seems legit
 
2012-11-29 04:09:21 PM  

whidbey: Joe Blowme: -Friedman

If there's anyone who needs to be the victim of his own farked up ideology, it's him.


would you settle for him being a victim of mortality?
 
2012-11-29 04:10:06 PM  

Bullseyed: kindms: what are they gonna do ? It isn't like CIO, CEO and CFO jobs are in abundance.

All the evidence anyone needs to know you don't know what you're talking about.


really ? your telling me that there are an abundance of top level jobs at corporations equivalent to what these folks were doing that will just leap at the opportunity to hire executives from a company that was run in to the ground ? Who don't already have folks from within vying for those jobs, who have more time and experience in their related fields ? Because last time I checked there were a lot of really educated qualified people out there who can't find jobs.
 
2012-11-29 04:11:31 PM  

Bullseyed: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!

The employees shafted everyone.

Getting paid $100/hour to push a button on the assembly line.


OOOH, a Fox Noise talking point.
 
2012-11-29 04:11:36 PM  

whidbey: Ah, capitalism.

I love how we still suck its dick in the supposedly enlightened 21st century.

Can't talk about being out of work, or hating on corporations that treat workers like shiat.

Because it would be rude, or something.


What other way works when there are limited resources?
 
2012-11-29 04:12:39 PM  

kindms: Bullseyed: kindms: what are they gonna do ? It isn't like CIO, CEO and CFO jobs are in abundance.

All the evidence anyone needs to know you don't know what you're talking about.

really ? your telling me that there are an abundance of top level jobs at corporations equivalent to what these folks were doing that will just leap at the opportunity to hire executives from a company that was run in to the ground ? Who don't already have folks from within vying for those jobs, who have more time and experience in their related fields ? Because last time I checked there were a lot of really educated qualified people out there who can't find jobs.


What are they really educated in? If it's not STEM or business, it's really not "qualified."
 
2012-11-29 04:13:45 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.


It also incites calls for violence from internet basement dwellers.
 
2012-11-29 04:15:19 PM  

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


I know you were being your usual ignorant self, but it largely was.

Even the bakers union has said as much. The teamsters union enforced rules that caused an estimates 80 million a year in extra costs. Can't ship Twinkies with wonder bread, that would be too efficient. The company would be profitable if transportation costs matched industry average. This was the main crux of the bakers unions actual pr.

But we don't expect you to actually know anything.

Surely the 1.5 million in bonus is much larger than the 80 million a year in excess transportation costs directly caused by union contracts.
 
2012-11-29 04:15:55 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The Vulture Capitalists get their pound of flesh, the executives get their golden parachutes, and the employees get shafted big time.

That's the Bain Way!


You do know that the primary investors are democrats. Heh.
 
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.
 
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 327 of 327 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report