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

[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.”

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

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

 

[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,



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

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

 

[Stephanie]

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

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

oh boy, they couldn't pay their bills with what Hostess was offering, they could of quit and found another job..but as it is they now have no job because they followed some union leader off the cliff...their families must be proud of them...they did it all to themselves, and no amount of whining about a Ceo's pay will change that

 

[kwc57]

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

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

It would have been much smarter to take the cut, keep your job, go find a better paying job and then quit than everybody lose their jobs and have to look for a job with 18,000 of your closest friends. Collective bargaining is great until the collective runs off the cliff, then you're screwed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

oh boy, they couldn't pay their bills with what Hostess was offering, they could of quit and found another job..but as it is they now have no job because they followed some union leader off the cliff...their families must be proud of them...they did it all to themselves, and no amount of whining about a Ceo's pay will change that

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

oh boy, they couldn't pay their bills with what Hostess was offering, they could of quit and found another job..but as it is they now have no job because they followed some union leader off the cliff...their families must be proud of them...they did it all to themselves, and no amount of whining about a Ceo's pay will change that

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

Under the present contract, they're losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay the workers?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

I'm pretty sure I did not say in my post that "workers are not that bright". The point is that all workers have a right to seek the market value of their contribution in compensation, and to refuse to accept anything that they feel is below their "worth". In this case, the CEO felt he was being inadequately compensated and was able to easily find another large company that saw the value of his contribution. The bakers also refused to accept the compensation offered as less than their value; it remains to be seen whether their estimation of that value is justified and a new owner of Hostess' assets not only will pay them what they feel they are worth, but will welcome their union to join them. I wish them luck.

You are right about one thing; in its effort to keep what it viewed as an integral part of its management team on board, Hostess provided the workers and the press (and the OP) with the ability to show righteous indignation and probably stiffened the negotiations beyond the point of no return; in that sense they would have been better to have denied the CEO's demands unless they could be sure they would stick.

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

especially when Barry is going to let you sit on your ass for 99 weeks collecting.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

oh boy, they couldn't pay their bills with what Hostess was offering, they could of quit and found another job..but as it is they now have no job because they followed some union leader off the cliff...their families must be proud of them...they did it all to themselves, and no amount of whining about a Ceo's pay will change that

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

Under the present contract, they're losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay the workers?

Under their present agreement with their creditors, they are losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay off their debts?

 

[Politico]

Jeez no 75% option?

 

[freedombecki]

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

Under the present contract, they're losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay the workers?

Under their present agreement with their creditors, they are losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay off their debts?

Sheeze, Doctor Doh. The contract is making them lose money, and their creditors are making them lose money by demanding payment.

That tells the world the company is in the middle of a Mexican standoff. The CEOs will have large lawyer bills to pay when the Mexican standoff results in filing for bankruptcy between two entities demanding payment, so they gave their CEOs protection for the fray that is ensuing.

With nobody willing to give in and huge lawyer fees, they'll wind up with absolutely nothing. That way, the Union will get what it wanted in the first place--class misery for management.

That seems consistent with what they already did.

Maybe they'll have to share a turkey with each other on Thanksgiving, and it'll all go away. Cause this dispute is a turkey for all.

American Pathos, 2012
​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

Under the present contract, they're losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay the workers?

Under their present agreement with their creditors, they are losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay off their debts?

You're the one whining about them not honoring the contracts. Help a brother out.

 

[Rshermr]

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.

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

Yes, well, cons tend to be stupid. So the studies prove. Which makes them giggle a lot at things that are not really funny. Just can not be helped, eh stephanie. Here, read these:

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

When you get done, you will understand that it is not your fault. We should not blame you. It is just plain bad luck.

 

[Barb]

Workers have a larger motivation....feeding their families

Accepting paycut after paycut to the point your ability to pay your bills is jeopardized is not in their best interests. Collective bargaining is one of their only tools. As a group, they said ....enough is enough

I suspect the workers had much more loyalty to Hostess than that CEO did. You just reach a point where you say, I am not going to take any more cuts

oh boy, they couldn't pay their bills with what Hostess was offering, they could of quit and found another job..but as it is they now have no job because they followed some union leader off the cliff...their families must be proud of them...they did it all to themselves, and no amount of whining about a Ceo's pay will change that

Or Hostess could simply honor its present labor contract like a grown up.

By right wing logic the real blame for the IBC bankruptcy goes to its creditors. The creditors are demanding they get paid by IBC according to their agreement. The union is demanding nothing any different than that.

 

[Barb]

 

[Barb]

 

[thanatos144]

Your point is to quote a high old comedian????? Explains quite a bit about your retardation.

 

[Stephanie]

Your point is to quote a high old comedian????? Explains quite a bit about your retardation.

 

[Barb]

Under the present contract, they're losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay the workers?

Under their present agreement with their creditors, they are losing money.
Maybe you'd like to pitch in to help pay off their debts?

Sheeze, Doctor Doh. The contract is making them lose money, and their creditors are making them lose money by demanding payment.

That tells the world the company is in the middle of a Mexican standoff. The CEOs will have large lawyer bills to pay when the Mexican standoff results in filing for bankruptcy between two entities demanding payment, so they gave their CEOs protection for the fray that is ensuing.

With nobody willing to give in and huge lawyer fees, they'll wind up with absolutely nothing. That way, the Union will get what it wanted in the first place--class misery for management.

That seems consistent with what they already did.

Maybe they'll have to share a turkey with each other on Thanksgiving, and it'll all go away. Cause this dispute is a turkey for all.

American Pathos, 2012
​

Are you seriously calling HIM captain obvious for pointing out that businesses shouldn't be making contracts for work they don't intend to honor and borrowing money that they can't afford to pay back?

Are you really suggesting that they should be able to privatize their profits and socialize their risks?

Where's all that personal responsibility you all like to believe your "moral standing" um, stands on?

 

[Barb]

Your point is to quote a high old comedian????? Explains quite a bit about your retardation.

Clowns throughout history are the ones who have had the stones to speak truth to power. Seems that is still true. Did you have a point?

 

[thanatos144]

Your point is to quote a high old comedian????? Explains quite a bit about your retardation.

Clowns throughout history are the ones who have had the stones to speak truth to power. Seems that is still true. Did you have a point?

I made my point.....As normal it was too advanced for you.