• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends[W:521]

Dickieboy said:
This is overly simplistic. First, they could not give themselves raises WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT! Secondly, how would the company assure that management would STAY employed without some enticement? Considering that the ongoing operation required capital infusion what would motivate these PE firms to invest without some form of stable management in place? Or is it you opinion that a 'ship can captain its self'? I'm sure the PE firms would be comfortable with that...;)
Click to expand...

Of course. It is useless to argue with people who have this mindset. Big Business = Bad.
 
winston53660 said:
SAme goes for the bakers.
Click to expand...

Management would probably have been delighted if some of the old-timers decided they wanted to leave the company. They are dispensable. Top management rarely is.
 
MaggieD said:
Management would probably have been delighted if some of the old-timers decided they wanted to leave the company. They are dispensable. Top management rarely is.
Click to expand...


Like the management at Hostess that went into bankruptcy twice and increased and voted themselves pay raises. Quite the management team there......
 
Dickieboy said:
This is overly simplistic. First, they could not give themselves raises WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT!
Click to expand...
Which is why they did it before filing for bankruptcy.

Dickieboy said:
Secondly, how would the company assure that management would STAY employed without some enticement? Considering that the ongoing operation required capital infusion what would motivate these PE firms to invest without some form of stable management in place? Or is it you opinion that a 'ship can captain its self'? I'm sure the PE firms would be comfortable with that...;)
Click to expand...
Why would they leave?? They only had to give up their salary for no more than 8 months. And the only reason they did that was in a failed attempt to save face after it became public knowledge that they had given themselves raises to offset the expected pay cuts from filing for bankruptcy -- an option not available to the rank & file employees they were insisting had to take a pay cut along with a salary freeze.
 
winston53660 said:
Like the management at Hostess that went into bankruptcy twice and increased and voted themselves pay raises. Quite the management team there......
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. They went into bankruptcy...twice, with management oversight AND the Bakers got a check even AFTER management voted themselves pay raises...NOW the bakers voted against concessions AND NOW no one will get a check...quite logical...thanks for that!
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which is why they did it before filing for bankruptcy.


Why would they leave?? They only had to give up their salary for no more than 8 months. And the only reason they did that was in a failed attempt to save face after it became public knowledge that they had given themselves raises to offset the expected pay cuts from filing for bankruptcy -- an option not available to the rank & file employees they were insisting had to take a pay cut along with a salary freeze.
Click to expand...

WAY OFF...dude that 'voted himself the raise' is not the same $1/yr dude...catch up!
 
MaggieD said:
Of course. It is useless to argue with people who have this mindset. Big Business = Bad.
Click to expand...
Big business isn't bad. It's overly greedy executives who are bad.
 
Dickieboy said:
WAY OFF...dude that 'voted himself the raise' is not the same $1/yr dude...catch up!
Click to expand...
Kindly explain how they have a $1 per year salary when that self-imposed salary can't even be in effect for a year??
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Which is why they did it before filing for bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

And FACTUALLY incorrect:

The company was going to pieces -- again -- and Hostess filed for Chapter 11 protection -- again -- in January of this year.

In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and "long-term incentive" compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he'd still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.
Click to expand...

Hostess is bankrupt … again - Fortune Management

Try again...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Kindly explain how they have a $1 per year salary when that self-imposed salary can't even be in effect for a year??
Click to expand...

I think you've lost sight of what you're arguing about. If you're saying that executive greed may have contributed to the destruction of Hostess, I doubt anyone would disagree with you. So what are you arguing??
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Kindly explain how they have a $1 per year salary when that self-imposed salary can't even be in effect for a year??
Click to expand...

Ok, so Rayburn was hired in March and has agreed to $1 in compensation until Jan 1...So you are correct he will be paid $1 for 10 months...that makes a HUGE difference in the point....:lamo
 
Hostess threatens to lay off 18,000 employees unless strike ends

From what I'm reading locally, the bakers didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. Accept the agreement and keep working. Then look real hard for another job. Now all they have is finding another job, and of course, give interviews to talk about how right you are.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
From what I'm reading locally, the bakers didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. Accept the agreement and keep working. Then look real hard for another job. Now all they have is finding another job, and of course, give interviews to talk about how right you are.
Click to expand...

I agree. Accept the agreement, keep working, look for another job. From what I read, the bakers UNION didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. I doubt a baker who has rent to pay is really concerned enough to strike and lose his job in order to protect "other bakers."
 
From viewing this in the totality the Bakers probably did the right thing. ALL parties involved were promoting the continuing of constraining capital in an endeavor that was DEEP in a death spiral. All the bakers did was ‘finish off the dead horse’ which was inevitable given its legacy costs and declining product acceptance. It is unfortunate that 18,000 will lose their jobs but the demand for SOME portion of Hostess’ products will continue and promote others to pick them up and produce which will employ many of those 18,000.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, so Rayburn was hired in March and has agreed to $1 in compensation until Jan 1...So you are correct he will be paid $1 for 10 months...that makes a HUGE difference in the point....:lamo
Click to expand...
Translation: They would have earned more than $1 for a years work.

While at the same time, demand that their employees take a pay cut and a wage freeze which would take years to get back to where they were.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Holy ****! Your own link proves what I said ...

Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer -- as the company was crumbling -- four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%.​

... how did you miss that part??
Click to expand...

No, I caught that but I typically require a little more proof than 'Some unsecured creditors had informed'...do you have anything more credible?
 
MaggieD said:
I agree. Accept the agreement, keep working, look for another job. From what I read, the bakers UNION didn't want to hurt the contracts of bakers at other companies. I doubt a baker who has rent to pay is really concerned enough to strike and lose his job in order to protect "other bakers."
Click to expand...

Hostess was a sinking ship and had they undermined their peers at other bakeries that would probably be frowned on if they managed to get hired at another bakery.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Translation: They would have earned more than $1 for a years work.

While at the same time, demand that their employees take a pay cut and a wage freeze which would take years to get back to where they were.
Click to expand...

Did you miss where I said 'You are correct'? Considering the cost difference - 4 Mgt x $1 = $4 and bakers 4,000x40hrsx$18x4wksx10mo=$115m It may have been more beneficial to the overall outcome if the Bakers had agreed to what management had agreed to...but of course I'm sure you would disagree with that...huh?
 
MaggieD said:
I think you've lost sight of what you're arguing about. If you're saying that executive greed may have contributed to the destruction of Hostess, I doubt anyone would disagree with you. So what are you arguing??
Click to expand...
What I've been sayingis that Hostess' executive's greed is what got in the way of reaching a deal with the union.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, I caught that but I typically require a little more proof than 'Some unsecured creditors had informed'...do you have anything more credible?
Click to expand...
Why on Earth do I need something more credible than your source???

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Are you saying your source isn't credible??? :shock:
 
Dickieboy said:
Did you miss where I said 'You are correct'? Considering the cost difference - 4 Mgt x $1 = $4 and bakers 4,000x40hrsx$18x4wksx10mo=$115m It may have been more beneficial to the overall outcome if the Bakers had agreed to what management had agreed to...but of course I'm sure you would disagree with that...huh?
Click to expand...
The top executives agreed to, what amounts to no salary, for less than a year. At which time, they return to their previous salaries that were increased by as much as 80% in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy.

I have no doubt that had execs made that same offer to the rank & file employees (to go for 9 months without any salary but then go from $20/hour to $36/hour (an 80% increase)), the strike would have ended immediately.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Why on Earth do I need something more credible than your source???

:lamo:lamo:lamo

Are you saying your source isn't credible??? :shock:
Click to expand...

Ah, being obtuse I see...carry on
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The top executives agreed to, what amounts to no salary, for less than a year. At which time, they return to their previous salaries that were increased by as much as 80% in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy.

I have no doubt that had execs made that same offer to the rank & file employees (to go for 9 months without any salary but then go from $20/hour to $36/hour (an 80% increase)), the strike would have ended immediately.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's compare. Four exec went from +/-$750k/yr = 3m/yr to 5.4m/yr. Bakers w/80% increase annually would be $133m. OH yes I see your logic now...considering the exec increase is .6% of the debt and the Bakers increase would be 15% of the debt that SURELY would be sustainable...try again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom