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

[Skull Pilot]

Hostess management runs the company into the ground and then tries to balance the books on the backs of the employees

Their choice since they own the business.

Their choice but the unions fault.

Got it.

The union didn't help keep the biz open now did they? Look it doesn't matter why a plant closes it's always the decision of the owners and not the employees and that's how it should be.

What you people don't understand is that when you don't own the business then you have no say as to how it's run or whether or not the company closes.

Actually that's not true. You get a say as to whether or not you will accept the managements offers of pay and compensation in exchange for your labor.

And if you don't like the offer then you can put in your notice and quit. But you still have no say as to how the company is run or whether it stays open or closes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Employees don't give raises you idiot.

And an employer can pay whatever he wants. If you don't like it you are free to get another job.

If you don't like it you're free to go out of business.

No I'm free to fire you and hire someone else.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hostess management runs the company into the ground and then tries to balance the books on the backs of the employees

Their choice since they own the business.

Maybe they wanted to get out and sell off the company so what?

What you people don't understand is that if you don't own the business then you have no say as to how it's run or whether or not the company closes.

It's the risk you take when working for someone other than yourself

But you do have a say in how much of a pay cut you are willing to accept

yeah and if you won't accept a pay cut then you can quit and find another job. You certainly should not have the right to walk off your job indefinitely and then expect to get it back,

If the company says, " If you accept half pay, I will be able to make more profit"the worker does not have to accept it. In this case, they didn't

As I said if you don't like it you are free to quit but you are not free to disrupt another's business.

You walk off the job, you're fired.

 

[rightwinger]

U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers - Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.

The 82-year-old Hostess wants permission to pay senior management a bonus of up to 75 percent of their annual pay so they will stay on and help wind-down the business.

 

[kwc57]

U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers - Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.

The 82-year-old Hostess wants permission to pay senior management a bonus of up to 75 percent of their annual pay so they will stay on and help wind-down the business.

That's normal. I've worked for companies that closed down before and they need certain key people to do the shut down. They work out an agreement with those people to stay until the end by promising them a certain amount. Nothing new there. The guy who squirts filling into Twinkies can't shut down the accounting department.

 

[ABikerSailor]

U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers - Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders.

The 82-year-old Hostess wants permission to pay senior management a bonus of up to 75 percent of their annual pay so they will stay on and help wind-down the business.

Yeah...............Hostess asked their workers to accept an 8 percent pay CUT, as well as a reduction in healthcare benefits, yet all the CEOs are getting RAISES of anywhere from 35 to 75 percent.

Yanno...........every year, the entire military gets a pay raise of anywhere from 1 to 3 percent (depending on how generous Congress and the President are that year), all the way from the lowest E-1 up to the highest ranking officer.

What do you think would be the reaction if one year Congress told the military that all the enlisted weren't going to be given a pay raise so that all the officers could receive double?

That's basically what Hostess has done to their workers.

 

[Stephanie]

Unions have been milking Hostess dry for years.

That's not even true. The union has done nothing but accept pay and compensation cuts since IBC first got into trouble years ago. In the meantime executive pay has skyrocketed. Its actually the executives who have been milking the company dry. Your statement is in no way rooted in factual reality. You're also a total fucking moron.

OH WELL, they are ALL out of a JOB NOW..
the Unions didn't want to give back a little more, tough shit just in time for Christmas..their families must be proud of them

 

[Luissa]

Unions have been milking Hostess dry for years.

That's not even true. The union has done nothing but accept pay and compensation cuts since IBC first got into trouble years ago. In the meantime executive pay has skyrocketed. Its actually the executives who have been milking the company dry. Your statement is in no way rooted in factual reality. You're also a total fucking moron.

OH WELL, they are ALL out of a JOB NOW..
the Unions didn't want to give back a little more, tough shit just in time for Christmas..their families must be proud of them

Um did you watch the news yesterday?

 

[Stephanie]

That's not even true. The union has done nothing but accept pay and compensation cuts since IBC first got into trouble years ago. In the meantime executive pay has skyrocketed. Its actually the executives who have been milking the company dry. Your statement is in no way rooted in factual reality. You're also a total fucking moron.

OH WELL, they are ALL out of a JOB NOW..
the Unions didn't want to give back a little more, tough shit just in time for Christmas..their families must be proud of them

Um did you watch the news yesterday?

a judge can't force hostess to give in to their demands..so either the UNION gives or they go

 

[Rshermr]

OH WELL, they are ALL out of a JOB NOW..
the Unions didn't want to give back a little more, tough shit just in time for Christmas..their families must be proud of them

Um did you watch the news yesterday?

a judge can't force hostess to give in to their demands..so either the UNION gives or they go

And stephanie is salivating, hoping to hear that the workers are out of a job. At Christmas to boot. Because stephanie is a con tool. And she hates unions. And loves corporate monopoly power. And vulture capitalism. Because Stephanie is a con tool.

 

[Stephanie]

Um did you watch the news yesterday?

a judge can't force hostess to give in to their demands..so either the UNION gives or they go

And stephanie is salivating, hoping to hear that the workers are out of a job. At Christmas to boot. Because stephanie is a con tool. And she hates unions. And loves corporate monopoly power. And vulture capitalism. Because Stephanie is a con tool.

oooooooooo, salivating huh..vultures, who did you pick that up from?
and you are a idiot..the Union brought this down on themselves and the people who followed their lead oh well..you won't find me crying for them

 

[Mr Natural]

Um did you watch the news yesterday?

a judge can't force hostess to give in to their demands..so either the UNION gives or they go

And stephanie is salivating, hoping to hear that the workers are out of a job. At Christmas to boot. Because stephanie is a con tool. And she hates unions. And loves corporate monopoly power. And vulture capitalism. Because Stephanie is a con tool.

One can only assume from her anti-labor rantings that she's a business owner.

And if she's not, then she's just a fucking idiot.

 

[Stephanie]

a judge can't force hostess to give in to their demands..so either the UNION gives or they go

And stephanie is salivating, hoping to hear that the workers are out of a job. At Christmas to boot. Because stephanie is a con tool. And she hates unions. And loves corporate monopoly power. And vulture capitalism. Because Stephanie is a con tool.

One can only assume from her anti-labor rantings that she's a business owner.

And if she's not, then she's just a fucking idiot.

assume what ever you want, I don't like thugs...the people in this Union had a choice..they made it

 

[Rshermr]

And stephanie is salivating, hoping to hear that the workers are out of a job. At Christmas to boot. Because stephanie is a con tool. And she hates unions. And loves corporate monopoly power. And vulture capitalism. Because Stephanie is a con tool.

One can only assume from her anti-labor rantings that she's a business owner.

And if she's not, then she's just a fucking idiot.

assume what ever you want, I don't like thugs...the people in this Union had a choice..they made it

She knows that they are thugs. Just knows it. Because as a con tool, that is what she was told. And so she believes, and she believes something that she has absolutely no proof of.
On the other hand, she knows that the ownership of Hostess are great guys. Never, ever in their life mistreated, in any way, their workers. And have the absolute right to all of the money they can take out, because Stephanie simply believes. Because she is a con tool. And that is what con tools are told. And it makes them angry. And they love being angry. Did everyone notice how angry Stephanie is???

 

[Stephanie]

One can only assume from her anti-labor rantings that she's a business owner.

And if she's not, then she's just a fucking idiot.

assume what ever you want, I don't like thugs...the people in this Union had a choice..they made it

She knows that they are thugs. Just knows it. Because as a con tool, that is what she was told. And so she believes, and she believes something that she has absolutely no proof of.
On the other hand, she knows that the ownership of Hostess are great guys. Never, ever in their life mistreated, in any way, their workers. And have the absolute right to all of the money they can take out, because Stephanie simply believes. Because she is a con tool. And that is what con tools are told. And it makes them angry. And they love being angry. Did everyone notice how angry Stephanie is???

do I have to pay for your psychobabble about me? and I guess you call post about me, calming?
worry about yourself...and stick with what the tread is about...or just fuck off...is that angry enough for you?

 

[BillyV]

I think the whole premise of this thread is wrong. The CEO has no more say in his own compensation than the Baker’s union has in theirs. Yes, the company offered the former CEO, Brian Driscoll, an increase. The Teamsters objected, and the result was that Driscoll resigned (no, he was not fired), much like the Baker’s union “resigned” by going out on strike. The difference? Driscoll went out and got a new job, as CEO of Diamond Foods, less than 2 months afterwards. See, the difference between his compensation requests and the line employees was he had options, and the owners/lenders of Hostess that wanted the company to survive knew that. They said at the time,

“Not having the certainty of Mr. Driscoll's commitment and access to his business industry and key customer contacts at this time will put the debtors and their restructuring as a going concern at tremendous risk, especially given the limited duration of the debtors' postpetition financing facility," Hostess said, referencing the $75 million loan deal for which a judge granted final approval last week. "It is Mr. Driscoll's business plan that will drive revenues and revitalize the debtors so that they can become a viable company again."

Hostess Seeks Lucrative Deal for CEO - WSJ.com

I don’t really know if he was worth what he had asked for, but clearly Diamond Foods was happy to accommodate him (of course, they are having serious troubles of their own, created before Driscoll arrived). By contrast, the 18,500 employees of Hostess, by and large, will not be as easily placed. I’m not sure that baking Twinkies and Ho Ho’s qualifies you for anything except baking other snack cakes in what is by all accounts a saturated market. It will probably never be known if the exit by Driscoll hastened Hostess’ demise, but the current CEO, Greg Rayburn, was elevated to that position by default after having spent only nine days with the company; perhaps he didn’t have the same abilities and/or contacts, or perhaps it strengthened the lenders’ resolve to get out with whatever was left in value before pouring any more cash down a hole. In any case, the CEO’s raise amounted to what, $1 million plus or minus. If you assume 18,500 employees at an average $50,000 compensation cost (wild guess), that’s about $1 billion in compensation; the 8% the company was seeking in concessions would have amounted to $80 million in savings; the health and pension concessions probably the same. It may feel like the workers were getting screwed, but in this case it was simply take less or liquidate; that was the baker’s right to choose. Only time will tell if they chose wisely, but it’s too bad that they chose for the other 70% of the employees who wanted to keep their jobs. In any case, it should be with regret that we watch that many Americans lose their livelihoods, not applause that the “union got what was coming to them.”

 

[Rshermr]

assume what ever you want, I don't like thugs...the people in this Union had a choice..they made it

She knows that they are thugs. Just knows it. Because as a con tool, that is what she was told. And so she believes, and she believes something that she has absolutely no proof of.
On the other hand, she knows that the ownership of Hostess are great guys. Never, ever in their life mistreated, in any way, their workers. And have the absolute right to all of the money they can take out, because Stephanie simply believes. Because she is a con tool. And that is what con tools are told. And it makes them angry. And they love being angry. Did everyone notice how angry Stephanie is???

do I have to pay for your psychobabble about me? and I guess you call post about me, calming?
worry about yourself...and stick with what the tread is about...or just fuck off...is that angry enough for you?

No need to pay. The diagnosis is too easy. Cons always have opinions, but no proof of anything. Just like you, stephanie. And, when they are caught, they just get angry. I really don't care if you are angry enough. Because you are a con tool. Unable to support your accusations. Just a waste of time.

and I guess you call post about me, calming?

If you understood the queens english, you would have a better chance of producing a sentence that made sense.

worry about yourself...and stick with what the tread is about...

tread? tread? Are we talking about tires, footprints....

 

[Barb]

What is this their stuff?
A corporation is 1 individual, only 1 acording to the supremes.
And it is not just "their" money when they stop paying into the employee pension fund.

Oh buddy I sOOoOo agree with you!!!! America should just make it law that no one owns their business, now the employees do!!! Unless it comes to marketing, taxes, decisions, product development, hiring, firing (can't fire anymore!!) responsibility if and when the company goes bankrupt.

Basically owners just take all the risk, find capital that no longer exists because they can’t make more money than Obama deems “fair” and employee’s who now semi own a company as long as it’s not inconvenient just show up to work when they feel like it!

So employees refusing to take pay cuts in the face of massive CEO pay hikes is like them "owning the company"

Got it.

Okay, maybe someone already answered this, but in case I don't get through the next ten pages:

Did those who took over the company raid the pension funds the employees contributed to either directly through pretax payments, or indirectly through contracted agreement wherein they work, the company, as part of their contracted pay package, agreed to put in so much every pay period / percentage of earnings, matching payments, or some combination of these?

Because THOSE funds most certainly DO belong to the employees, and where the fuck is it written that moneys like those, held by the company, don't have to be in their own account, payable to who and what it was intended for? If that isn't the law, it should be.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the whole premise of this thread is wrong. The CEO has no more say in his own compensation than the Baker’s union has in theirs. Yes, the company offered the former CEO, Brian Driscoll, an increase. The Teamsters objected, and the result was that Driscoll resigned (no, he was not fired), much like the Baker’s union “resigned” by going out on strike. The difference? Driscoll went out and got a new job, as CEO of Diamond Foods, less than 2 months afterwards. See, the difference between his compensation requests and the line employees was he had options, and the owners/lenders of Hostess that wanted the company to survive knew that. They said at the time,

“Not having the certainty of Mr. Driscoll's commitment and access to his business industry and key customer contacts at this time will put the debtors and their restructuring as a going concern at tremendous risk, especially given the limited duration of the debtors' postpetition financing facility," Hostess said, referencing the $75 million loan deal for which a judge granted final approval last week. "It is Mr. Driscoll's business plan that will drive revenues and revitalize the debtors so that they can become a viable company again."

Hostess Seeks Lucrative Deal for CEO - WSJ.com

I don’t really know if he was worth what he had asked for, but clearly Diamond Foods was happy to accommodate him (of course, they are having serious troubles of their own, created before Driscoll arrived). By contrast, the 18,500 employees of Hostess, by and large, will not be as easily placed. I’m not sure that baking Twinkies and Ho Ho’s qualifies you for anything except baking other snack cakes in what is by all accounts a saturated market. It will probably never be known if the exit by Driscoll hastened Hostess’ demise, but the current CEO, Greg Rayburn, was elevated to that position by default after having spent only nine days with the company; perhaps he didn’t have the same abilities and/or contacts, or perhaps it strengthened the lenders’ resolve to get out with whatever was left in value before pouring any more cash down a hole. In any case, the CEO’s raise amounted to what, $1 million plus or minus. If you assume 18,500 employees at an average $50,000 compensation cost (wild guess), that’s about $1 billion in compensation; the 8% the company was seeking in concessions would have amounted to $80 million in savings; the health and pension concessions probably the same. It may feel like the workers were getting screwed, but in this case it was simply take less or liquidate; that was the baker’s right to choose. Only time will tell if they chose wisely, but it’s too bad that they chose for the other 70% of the employees who wanted to keep their jobs. In any case, it should be with regret that we watch that many Americans lose their livelihoods, not applause that the “union got what was coming to them.”

So, basicaly, the CEO was being paid to do what CEOs do ...restructure a company

Why a $750,000 CEO now needs $2 million just to do his job is beyond me

Whatever the rationale, it is bad business to go after your workers for severe pay cuts after you had just tripled the CEOs pay. Like you said in your post, workers are not that bright and just won't understand why they have to sacrifice their families well being so that the company CEO can get an extra $1 million a year
But workers are stupid like that

 

[Stephanie]

She knows that they are thugs. Just knows it. Because as a con tool, that is what she was told. And so she believes, and she believes something that she has absolutely no proof of.
On the other hand, she knows that the ownership of Hostess are great guys. Never, ever in their life mistreated, in any way, their workers. And have the absolute right to all of the money they can take out, because Stephanie simply believes. Because she is a con tool. And that is what con tools are told. And it makes them angry. And they love being angry. Did everyone notice how angry Stephanie is???

do I have to pay for your psychobabble about me? and I guess you call post about me, calming?
worry about yourself...and stick with what the tread is about...or just fuck off...is that angry enough for you?

No need to pay. The diagnosis is too easy. Cons always have opinions, but no proof of anything. Just like you, stephanie. And, when they are caught, they just get angry. I really don't care if you are angry enough. Because you are a con tool. Unable to support your accusations. Just a waste of time.

and I guess you call post about me, calming?

If you understood the queens english, you would have a better chance of producing a sentence that made sense.

worry about yourself...and stick with what the tread is about...

tread? tread? Are we talking about tires, footprints....

and you got a atta boy from a secret admirer for this psychobabble

cracks me the hell up