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 87
    More: Asinine, twinkies, white-breads, Ho Hos, liquidation, ding dongs, blueberries  
•       •       •

7010 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 2:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-29 10:32:34 AM  
8 votes:
And remember - this is ALL the union's fault!
2012-11-29 10:37:03 AM  
6 votes:
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 02:44:54 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:35:14 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:34:06 PM  
5 votes:
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 10:36:07 AM  
5 votes:
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 02:36:07 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:36:05 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:27:33 PM  
4 votes:
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 11:12:43 AM  
4 votes:
The judge can only rule if it's legal or not, not how vile or wrong it may be.
2012-11-29 11:09:44 AM  
4 votes:
I think we can all agree that the top executives had an awesome union.
2012-11-29 10:37:00 AM  
4 votes:

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 02:55:57 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:55:50 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:38:27 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:36:55 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:35:37 PM  
3 votes:
Ah, this thread again. People still not understanding employment contracts.
2012-11-29 07:45:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:46:26 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:34:51 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:42:22 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:59:53 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:39:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:37:34 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:32:42 PM  
2 votes:
What is that? $100 per employee?
2012-11-29 02:31:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:40:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:34:36 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:22:04 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:19:05 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:07:02 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:38:00 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:37:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:44:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:27:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:53:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:32:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:29:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:08:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:07:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:48:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:43:16 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:41:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


We have to protect the job creators destroyers!

FTFM
2012-11-29 03:39:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:23:00 PM  
1 votes:
And this is what happens when the People refuse to round up and decapitate the rich.

www.herodote.net
2012-11-29 03:18:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:11:46 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:03:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:01:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:01:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:58:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:56:07 PM  
1 votes:
Really? what a farking crock of shiat. There should be no bonuses for those who drove Hostess into the ground.
2012-11-29 02:55:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:55:20 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-29 02:54:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:54:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:51:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:51:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:46:56 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:45:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:44:50 PM  
1 votes:
Fark the retention bonus. Regular base pay for sticking around, plus bonus for liquidation performance paid when it's all over.
2012-11-29 02:43:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:42:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:40:30 PM  
1 votes:
$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 02:36:11 PM  
1 votes:
$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 02:32:24 PM  
1 votes:
If it goes through, I hope there's some good old fashioned union justice enacted.
2012-11-29 02:31:54 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:31:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:29:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:46:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:34:56 PM  
1 votes:
I am starting to wonder if I will see a guillotine in action in my life time.
2012-11-29 12:29:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:41:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:13:35 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:40:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:38:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:09 AM  
1 votes:
Bunch of farking ding dongs......
 
Displayed 87 of 87 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report