Phatscotty wrote:Evil Semp wrote:%hatscotty wrote: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 $1. Others agreed to have their pay brought back to the level it was at before the raises. Permanent pay cuts for the workers and temporary cuts for the executives. Sounds fair to me.
http://radicalruss.com/hostess-ceo-greg ... f-company/
we've already decided that nothing the management does or did do or could do would be good enough....
Regardless, they took a lot of cuts. They took one for the team. Of course they are not going to make 1$ 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?