How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?

[TakeAStepBack]

What "union situation" is this? The one where unions go on strike after you cut out their pension benefit and ask them for a 30% pay cut after giving yourself a big pay hike?

As for the financial situation - buying companies in a bad situation on the cheap to raid them for cash is exactly what vulture capitalists do.

I don't give a fuck if they gave themselves a 9,000% pay raise, it's their fucking company. The Union lost everyone their jobs, you are just to fucking libtarded to understand you are the reason people are so poor.

Are you running for Tard of the Year? Your post just might get you there. By your logic, employers could pay employees basic minumum wage for less than 30 hours a week, but it's the employees' fault they're poor.

Way to look out for America's best interests there, chump. I'm sure some shark CEO will give you a prize. Go team you, woot.

They can find new jobs and if the company doesnt pay better they will get no labor and go out of business.. Are you going for the most economically inept of the year award. Because it seems that way.

 

[Stephanie]

What "union situation" is this? The one where unions go on strike after you cut out their pension benefit and ask them for a 30% pay cut after giving yourself a big pay hike?

As for the financial situation - buying companies in a bad situation on the cheap to raid them for cash is exactly what vulture capitalists do.

I don't give a fuck if they gave themselves a 9,000% pay raise, it's their fucking company. The Union lost everyone their jobs, you are just to fucking libtarded to understand you are the reason people are so poor.

Are you running for Tard of the Year? Your post just might get you there. By your logic, employers could pay employees basic minumum wage for less than 30 hours a week, but it's the employees' fault they're poor.

Way to look out for America's best interests there, chump. I'm sure some shark CEO will give you a prize. Go team you, woot.

lol, looking out for AMERCIAS best interest
the new Socialist talking point to rant against business that doesn't bow down to Unions or Government

 

[AmyNation]

The owner said, "unless employees take the cut, there is not enough profit in this for me to keep the factories running". The unions said no, and the CEO closed shop.

He can make more money selling off the recipes and rights to other companies than making the stuff himself because the employees won't work for less.

That's his prerogative, his company, his right.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?


The vultures who bought Hostess thought it should be around 30%.

Their employees disagreed. I guess they're just greedy, right?

Stick it to the vultures!

The employees don't need jobs, as long as they can stick it to the man!

Maybe the union should buy the company?
How'd that work for United Airlines?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So someone bought Hostess knowing the union and finiancial situation?
Who are the dumpasses?

What "union situation" is this? The one where unions go on strike after you cut out their pension benefit and ask them for a 30% pay cut after giving yourself a big pay hike?

As for the financial situation - buying companies in a bad situation on the cheap to raid them for cash is exactly what vulture capitalists do.

And raiding the pension fund of an aquired company is a favorite pasttime.

You can only "raid the pension fund" if it's overfunded.
That's the last problem Hostess had.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep one reason the company was aquired was to raid their well funded employee pension fund.

The company's IBC Defined Benefit Plan had about $56 million in assets and $111 million in liabilities as of April 30, according to the PBGC.

“PBGC exists to safeguard retirement security in uncertain times, and that's what we'll do for the 2,300 men and women in Hostess's single-employer plan if the company liquidates. The plan is underfunded by about $55 million,” said J. Jioni Palmer, PBGC spokesman, in an e-mailed statement.


http://www.pionline.com/article/201...terminate-pension-plan-as-part-of-liquidation

Silly rabbit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep one reason the company was aquired was to raid their well funded employee pension fund.

Give this man a cigar.

Do they give out cigars for being wrong?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Rshermr]

Now they have no job! Yay!!! Obama will sit their asses on welfare for 10 years and Dems won't ever lose an election!!! YAYAY!!!!! WeLFARE YAYAYAY!!!!!

The end has passed, we are floating our way to the bottom. Don't believe me, ask the FED to stop pumping 40 billion a month into a lifeless economy, ask Obama to end the welfare wars, ask Obama to end years of welfare and see how great things are.

No matter, when the economy keeps sucking Obama can keep blaming Bush, Republicans, the American people, white people, ATM’s, China, something, something else…. But never ever will Obama say “Dang, I was wrong…”

Did you notice that there was an election lately} did you notice that the tea party got creamed? Did you notice that as a libertarian, you have a really really really difficult time pointing out a libertarian economy that has ever worked over time?

 

[Rshermr]

Yep one reason the company was aquired was to raid their well funded employee pension fund.

Give this man a cigar.

Do they give out cigars for being wrong?

Well, you should know.

 

[Rshermr]

Yep one reason the company was aquired was to raid their well funded employee pension fund.

The company's IBC Defined Benefit Plan had about $56 million in assets and $111 million in liabilities as of April 30, according to the PBGC.

“PBGC exists to safeguard retirement security in uncertain times, and that's what we'll do for the 2,300 men and women in Hostess's single-employer plan if the company liquidates. The plan is underfunded by about $55 million,” said J. Jioni Palmer, PBGC spokesman, in an e-mailed statement.


http://www.pionline.com/article/201...terminate-pension-plan-as-part-of-liquidation

Silly rabbit.

Question is, why? Could see no reason given by the article of your link.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Give this man a cigar.

Do they give out cigars for being wrong?

Well, you should know.

I've never given him any.
Should I start now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep one reason the company was aquired was to raid their well funded employee pension fund.

The company's IBC Defined Benefit Plan had about $56 million in assets and $111 million in liabilities as of April 30, according to the PBGC.

“PBGC exists to safeguard retirement security in uncertain times, and that's what we'll do for the 2,300 men and women in Hostess's single-employer plan if the company liquidates. The plan is underfunded by about $55 million,” said J. Jioni Palmer, PBGC spokesman, in an e-mailed statement.


http://www.pionline.com/article/201...terminate-pension-plan-as-part-of-liquidation

Silly rabbit.

Question is, why? Could see no reason given by the article of your link.

Because they couldn't make a profit with their union contracts.

 

[Katzndogz]

The union demands were far more than just a pay cut. There were dozens of demands that were largely met. The truck fleet was increased so that no truck would be required to deliver bread and dessert items in the same truck. The teamster's demand was met. All trucks had to have drivers and handlers because union rules said that no driver was permitted to take deliveries out of the truck into the store, they needed a handler for that. The unions didn't only increase wage and benefit demands but changes in the business operation to artificially increase the number of employees and union members. Hostess struggled, could not meet the Baker's union demands and went out of business.

The company has been in trouble since 2004 when it first filed bankruptcy. The unions KNEW the company was going under. They just kept bleeding it dry.

 

[Toro]

Link?

Given that the company is going to be liquidated, it appears that whatever pay cut was offered was not enough. But I don't know enough about it.

Usually, the way these deals are structured is that the management team gets a market or below market salary but receives performance bonuses based on how much they improve operations that can dramatically increase their total compensation. I may be wrong since I don't know the deal, but when I see the title - and make the generally accurate assumption that journalists either don't know the whole story or don't care and want to sensationalize - I usually think its out of context.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The union demands were far more than just a pay cut. There were dozens of demands that were largely met. The truck fleet was increased so that no truck would be required to deliver bread and dessert items in the same truck. The teamster's demand was met. All trucks had to have drivers and handlers because union rules said that no driver was permitted to take deliveries out of the truck into the store, they needed a handler for that. The unions didn't only increase wage and benefit demands but changes in the business operation to artificially increase the number of employees and union members. Hostess struggled, could not meet the Baker's union demands and went out of business.

The company has been in trouble since 2004 when it first filed bankruptcy. The unions KNEW the company was going under. They just kept bleeding it dry.

Unions have an almost suicidal sense of liberal entitlement. THey must be broken and buried if American is to based on real value rather than union violence. I have a factory right next door that closed down and moved all equipment down south over a weekend. The unions picketed for over a year afterwards as if some fascist was going to make the evil capitalists bring back their jobs.

 

[Rozman]

I think some sort of contribution should be made by the employees to keep the company healthy.
And to do that we need a stable management team in place.

 

[Toro]

Hostess posted sales of $2.5 billion in 2011 but lost $341 million and lacked the cash flow to hold out through the bakers union work stoppage that had only lost a few days of production so far. One reason is a labor-rule burden that by comparison makes Detroit look like Hong Kong.

The snack giant endured $52 million in workers' comp claims in 2011, according to its bankruptcy filing this January. Hostess's 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012.

Union work rules usually required cake and bread products to be delivered to a single retail location using two separate trucks. Drivers weren't allowed to load their own vehicles, and the workers who loaded bread weren't allowed to load cake. On most delivery routes, another "pull up" employee moved products from back rooms to shelves.

Review & Outlook: The Twinkie, a Suicide - WSJ.com

I am agnostic on unions per se, but when I read that last paragraph about rigid, archaic and idiotic work rules, I have little sympathy for the union.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They never intended to make the company solvent long term, they only intended to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible before complete liquidation.

liberal, too absolutely and perfectly stupid!! 100% would want to make it profitable long term if possible since it would then be worth 100 times more!!


See why we must be 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they only intended to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible before complete liquidation.

This is identical to saying a car owner is evil for driving his clunker a little longer to squeeze what value he can out of it before liquidating it for parts.

A liberal lacks the IQ for economics so should not comment on related matters.