Unions Shut Down Hostess

[Evil Semp]

I might agree, but that doesn't mean that they are. The upper management took 99.9% paycuts to keep the company running, in this case...

When did they take those pay cuts? The cuts were only in effect until Dec. 31. Would the employee pay cuts only be in effect until Dec. 31? Only four executives under the CEO agreed to have their pay cut to $1. Others agreed to have their pay brought back to the level it was at before the raises. Permanent pay cuts for the workers and temporary cuts for the executives. Sounds fair to me.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp
http://radicalruss.com/hostess-ceo-greg ... f-company/

we've already decided that nothing the management does or did do or could do would be good enough....

Regardless, they took a lot of cuts. They took one for the team. Of course they are not going to make 1$ a year forever (think of all the tax revenue lost! ) And of course it's a short term plan. when the company is teetering on the brink of solvency, everything is short term. They didn't even make it to December 31st, so I don't see any point making a issue about "only taking the cuts till dec 31st" and I would put more stock into "now its the other sides turn to take one for the team" The workers did not, so they did not make it to dec 31st

Now none of them have jobs. Now there are no tax revenues being generated

Then why did you make it a point that he took a 99.9% pay cut? I am saying the knight in shining armor isn't so shiny.

Didn't the workers take one for the team the last time the company was in trouble?

[Phatscotty]

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

[Iliad]

Here is the article posted earlier about the pay increases for management. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 47043.html

btw, this link has been "corrected" At first I was just going to point out that these management pay raises were "claims" from the union, but it doesn't matter anymore anyways...

Yes it does matter. It could explain part of the reason why the employees would accept the pay cuts.

An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

The name given was wrong but that doesn't change the fact about the pay increases or at least the attempt at the pay increases.

Hostess’ creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

I bet this won't matter though. The incorrect information has been corrected, but the opinions of posters that have been strongly shaped based solely on the size of the pay raises and salaries for the CEO and management will probably stay the same...

Actually it does matter. It show me that he might have taken one for the team but we don't know about his whole pay and compensation package.

Here is an article explaining the CEO changes at Hostess. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/03/09/h ... as-sought/

ty again for the link. I am eating them up like candy!

However, it does show he certainly did his part, basically taking a 99.9% pay cut on his standard salary. If that isn't good enough, then I'm not sure if anything would have been good enough. He not only took one for the team, he sacrificed so that there was still a "team" at all. He's probably pretty pissed now that after what he gave up to keep the company going and keep the workers working, and they just walked out on the company. I'm more pissed at the employees now too.

Let me read your link

Why are you pissed off at the employees? Why is this an emotional event at all?

Isn't this your fabled free market at work? A company can't operate unless it pays its employees below market rate wages.
Clearly it's inefficient relative to its competitors if it can't maintain a profit and pay its employees the market rate for their wages, so by going bankrupt it's opening up market space for its more efficient competitors. Its employees, as rational self-interested individuals, as all are in an economist framework, have no interest in sacrificing their own wages to perpetuate inefficiency. If a company can't pay its employees the average market rate wages and maintain a profit, then i don't see why it should be in business.

Why is it, when tax hikes are proposed, even by 1 or 2% the lovely business owners can threaten to flee and relocate and this is celebrated as the 'market' in action, but apparently employees are supposed to accept a 5% pay cut just after concessions two years ago. Like their jobs are some kind of gift bestowed on them and their rational self-interest is not at stake.

You make for a shitty economist if you can't even adhere to your own ideology and just blindly shit on the poorer side in an argument.

Still no-one even trying to refute this.

[Evil Semp]

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.

[Phatscotty]

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.

whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well

[Evil Semp]

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.

whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well

I take that as a compliment scotty. Why don't you address any of my comments. You seem to side step comments made by others.

Would Rayburn have taken the pay cut if he didn't have other income? I doubt it. He took the pay cut as a PR stunt.

[Phatscotty]

because, he took one for the team. Sure, there is more to it, but mostly this is the topic because of the 5% cut the workers refused.

wanted to throw this commentary out there too

Yes there is more. How about the raise in health care and pension cuts. I don't see anything saying the CEO taking any of those cuts. Yeah he took a temporary cut in pay but was getting it back. I don't see where the employees cuts were temporary. Yeah he took one for the team, he should he is the leader of the team.

whatever people say, I'm confident your attitude pin-points the attitudes of the unions workers, and you speak for them well

I take that as a compliment scotty. Why don't you address any of my comments. You seem to side step comments made by others.

Would Rayburn have taken the pay cut if he didn't have other income? I doubt it. He took the pay cut as a PR stunt.

we aren't getting anywhere. I feel like you keep moving the goal post. You asked "when" were the raises, I adressed it. Then you jumped to something else to do with the raises, I addressed it. Now we are into the benefits and health care program...

I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time

[Evil Semp]

I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time

If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.

Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.

[Phatscotty]

I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time

If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.

and you are prepared to take a 100% cut to back that up?

Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.

I can't figure out how you aren't asking me to start all over from the beginning, because all I want to say to that is "management is prepared to take a 99.9% paycut, and work for a 1$/year"

[Evil Semp]

I mentioned from the start that nothing would be good enough, we don't have to refigure that out one piece at a time

If my boss said he would take a pay cut until the end of the year and I would have to take a pay cut with no time line on getting back to that pay level but I would also have to take cuts in benefits I would say no also.

and you are prepared to take a 100% cut to back that up? [\quote]

Yes I am.

Your are right about one thing. Nothing would be good enough for you if the employees didn't accept managements proposals.

Humor me scotty. Lets have a negotiation. You are management and I am the union. Convince me that management would take the same hit for the company that the employees were being asked to take. Remember some management had their raises taken away but they didn't take a pay cut from their previous pay level.

I can't figure out how you aren't asking me to start all over from the beginning, because all I want to say to that is "management is prepared to take a 99.9% paycut, and work for a 1$/year"

I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.

[Phatscotty]

so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.

[Nola_Lifer]

so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.

Answer the question. Talk about one who is doggy.

I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.

[Phatscotty]

so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.

I am not asking you to start over. I am asking how a few members of management taking a pay cut for a predetermined amount of time is fair.

whats up dawgy?

[Evil Semp]

so your main hang up was that the CEO only made 1$ until december 31st? I'm not sure how fair it is, but I am sure it's a start.

NO scotty that is not my hang up. My hang up is how long will the employees have to endure the pay cuts, increase in health insurance payments and decrease in the pension contributions. Rayburn has other income to make up for his pay cut the employees don't.

[Viceroy63]

Has anyone addressed the fact that the Unions began as a means to protect worker health and personal rights and dignity and are now the abusers of the companies and it seems to me that some times they even work with the companies behind the union employee backs to deny workers benefits and help companies for monies.

Oh, how the wheels have turned?