Goodbye Twinkies? +Quote on "Entitlement Society"

[tbwinner]

Now, I'm not an expert in labor/management relations, but it seems the actions of 6,000 could affect 18,000 employees tomorrow. The Union of 6,000 Hostess employees refuses to take the 8% pay cut in order to remain in operations during Ch 11 reorganization and could force Hostess to go into liquidation, thereby cutting all 18k jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ch-twinkies-hostess-wonder-bread-strike,0,6249411.story

The last sentence/quote speaks mountains about the entitlement society that extended unemployment has created:
"But if I have to take the cuts they're talking about I can get more from unemployment."

[Marshall Bennett]

Oh shit, I love twinkies and those orange icing cream filled cupcakes.

[wisconsin]

Someone will buy the rights, like Hostess did Dolly Madison, and they'll all be working for less. They get what they ask for.

[Dave Schwartz]

"But if I have to take the cuts they're talking about I can get more from unemployment."

And there you have the whole story.

[Tom]

And there you have the whole story.

GD leeches...every one of them.
Union boys......they are an insult to this country.

I hope they re-open under a new name off shore - a country that supports labor union doesn't deserve jobs. Losing union jobs is never a bad thing.

[Robert Fischer]

Apparently Hostess is working the system to their benefit, about 1000x more than any of the employees.

CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION ??

THREATENING TO LIQUIDATE 18,000 JOBS IF 8% PAY-CUT NOT ACCEPTED??


Hostess is a major FAIL working the system big time, and yet you guys want to focus on some quote some idiot employee said about unemployment benefits?

There are bad union practices out there, but not accepting an 8% pay-cut isn't exactly a dirty union tactic.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As I think I mentioned as an inevitability in the other Twinkies thread, the Teamsters aren't too excited about having this union cut in on their union.

“The [bakers union] chose a different path, as is their prerogative, to not substantively look for a solution or engage in the process. [Bakers union] members were told there were better solutions than the final [contract] offer, although Judge Drain stated in his decision in bankruptcy court that no such solutions exist.

...

“The [bakers’ union] leaders are putting Teamster members in a horrible position – asking them to support a strike that will put them out of a job when they haven’t even asked all their members to go on strike.”

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/teamsters-urges-bakers-to-vote-in-ongoing-twinkies-strike.html/

[Dave Schwartz]

Union boys......they are an insult to this country.

Tom,

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

Unions began because of the mistreatment of workers in our society. They serve a purpose. Without them, SOME businesses would abuse their workers horribly.

However, I do agree that SOME unions (and locals) are out of control. They have become the abusers.

My comment was aimed at the fact that anyone who chooses not to work should not get paid. Period. Being "on the dole" should not be by choice. It should be by necessity.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ElKabong]

Tom,

Sorry, I cannot agree with that.

Unions began because of the mistreatment of workers in our society. They serve a purpose. Without them, SOME businesses would abuse their workers horribly.

However, I do agree that SOME unions (and locals) are out of control. They have become the abusers.

My comment was aimed at the fact that anyone who chooses not to work should not get paid. Period. Being "on the dole" should not be by choice. It should be by necessity.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Did you (or anyone) see the History Channel's 'TheMen Who Built America'? Back at the turn of the century unions were definitely needed. Not now.

http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

But the interesting part is, we're headed towards a stagnating or even perhaps a deflating economy. The middle class, even the upper middle will be under the gun for years to come. Unions may make a comeback in the years ahead if corp's take advantage of the situation.....as of now, that's NOT the case imo

I highly recommend this 4 or 5 part show. I spent all day Sunday watching this series, totally ignored football. Magnificent series, and the possible parallels of the current economic situation can bring on much of what was experienced 100 years ago - but not what you would think it entails.

One thing I thought was interesting, JP Morgan, Rockefeller, et al put their $$ behind McKinley & won the WH....Much of the same pro-Romney rhetoric was used at the time......after he was assassinated Teddy R was put in power and broke down the Trusts. Politics played a huge part in who was broken up, who wasn't

Highly recommend the series, regardless of political or social beliefs

[mostpost]

Now, I'm not an expert in labor/management relations, but it seems the actions of 6,000 could affect 18,000 employees tomorrow. The Union of 6,000 Hostess employees refuses to take the 8% pay cut in order to remain in operations during Ch 11 reorganization and could force Hostess to go into liquidation, thereby cutting all 18k jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ch-twinkies-hostess-wonder-bread-strike,0,6249411.story

The last sentence/quote speaks mountains about the entitlement society that extended unemployment has created:
"But if I have to take the cuts they're talking about I can get more from unemployment."

The cut is 32% not 8%. The 8% is just the first of many proposed cuts. Do you understand what a 32% cut means? The story talks about a worker who makes $17 an hour. After a 32% cut that workers annual salary goes from $35,360 a year to $24,044 a year. And that is before taxes are deducted; taxes and Social Security and Medicare. Basically they are reduced to the poverty level.

Hostess is owned by two hedge funds. This is Bain Capital all over again. Instead of modernizing the facilities and investing in new equipment, they stopped funding the pension plan. Instead of paying the employees they diverted money to executive salaries. The company is going under not because of union intransigence. It is going under because the owners want it to go under. This is a classic example of vulture capitalism.

[Tom]

Did you (or anyone) see the History Channel's 'TheMen Who Built America'? Back at the turn of the century unions were definitely needed. Not now.

Look at all the great accomplishments that were born out that greed and vengence! No damned government or union would have ever gotten done what those titans did. There were two sides to that era. Today, with public union boys on the job, we can't even turn the lights on in Long Island.

[ArlJim78]

looks like they no longer have to worry about those salary and benefit cuts.


Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:24am EST
(Reuters) - Hostess Brands Inc, the maker of Twinkies and Wonder Bread, said it will ask a bankruptcy judge for permission to liquidate after failing to obtain wage and benefit cuts from thousands of its bakery workers.

[wisconsin]

The cut is 32% not 8%. The 8% is just the first of many proposed cuts. Do you understand what a 32% cut means? The story talks about a worker who makes $17 an hour. After a 32% cut that workers annual salary goes from $35,360 a year to $24,044 a year. And that is before taxes are deducted; taxes and Social Security and Medicare. Basically they are reduced to the poverty level.

Hostess is owned by two hedge funds. This is Bain Capital all over again. Instead of modernizing the facilities and investing in new equipment, they stopped funding the pension plan. Instead of paying the employees they diverted money to executive salaries. The company is going under not because of union intransigence. It is going under because the owners want it to go under. This is a classic example of vulture capitalism.

Hostess really is a company who's time has come and gone. There was not the bread competition that there is today, and not too many people are willing to fork over $1.39 for Twinkies when most convenience stores have there own bakery now. When market shares dwindle, the company suffers. It has little to do with "modernizing".

[JustRalph]

18k out of a job.

Something I noticed in an article this morning

"Only 1/3 are members of a Union"

I read that the other 2/3'rds refused to cross the picket line

This is going to be a shitty weekend for some

[pandy]

The cut is 32% not 8%. The 8% is just the first of many proposed cuts. Do you understand what a 32% cut means? The story talks about a worker who makes $17 an hour. After a 32% cut that workers annual salary goes from $35,360 a year to $24,044 a year. And that is before taxes are deducted; taxes and Social Security and Medicare. Basically they are reduced to the poverty level.

Hostess is owned by two hedge funds. This is Bain Capital all over again. Instead of modernizing the facilities and investing in new equipment, they stopped funding the pension plan. Instead of paying the employees they diverted money to executive salaries. The company is going under not because of union intransigence. It is going under because the owners want it to go under. This is a classic example of vulture capitalism.


Most, I think you're being unfair here. Hostess is not in trouble because the owners want it to go out of business. It is in trouble because it is losing money. I'm not saying that's the union or workers fault, it probably is a combination of management mistakes and the fact that the demand for their unhealthy products is not there anymore. Let's face it, only kids like Twinkies but Twinkies are not healthy and parents nowadays are more careful about what they let their kids eat.

They announced today that they are closing after workers failed to report to work by yesterday's deadline. Also, where did you get your facts about 32%? I read that they were offered an 8% pay cut and they would have to pay 20% of their health insurance. This would put them more on par with many other workers in the private sector with similar jobs.

[Tom]

18k out of a job.

Something I noticed in an article this morning

"Only 1/3 are members of a Union"

I read that the other 2/3'rds refused to cross the picket line

This is going to be a shitty weekend for some

Yes, for the TAXPAYERS who have to carry those worthless ares who refused to go to work and pay their own way - yet again. No unemployment should EVER be allowed in cases like this. There is no reason for thses leeches to get one dollar from anyone else -- they had a chance to keep the jobs and were too greedy. Now let them pay the price.

My hope is more than a few will lose their homes. Tough love is needed.

[pandy]

CNBC just interviewed the CEO of Hostess. He said that Ripplewood, which is the private equity company involved, has sunk 30 million into the company trying to fix it. He said that 30% of the employees refused to accept the offer which will put 18,500 people out of work. He also said that the company agreed as part of the deal to improve working conditions. The majority of these workers will be lucky to find a job in this economy let alone one as good as this. The plan now is to sell the brands.

[ArlJim78]

the brands are iconic and will survive.

[OntheRail]

Yes, for the TAXPAYERS who have to carry those worthless ares who refused to go to work and pay their own way - yet again. No unemployment should EVER be allowed in cases like this. There is no reason for thses leeches to get one dollar from anyone else -- they had a chance to keep the jobs and were too greedy. Now let them pay the price.

My hope is more than a few will lose their homes. Tough love is needed.
I agree the Union should have to support these slugs. Since it's their call to trashcan the company.

[OntheRail]

the brands are iconic and will survive.

Yep China will snag em' up... sent a plant up in Mexico using Stimulus Money that Ob's gave them... Woo hoo more imports. :rolleyes:

[pandy]

Little Debbie and Tastykake are still in business and both bake their products here in the USA. I'm sure they will be interested in the brand names.

[pandy]

I don't know if you've seen the reports on Twinkie ingredients. One guy wrote a book on it. I don't think this helped sales.

www.divinecaroline.com/22106/35281-twinkie-ingredients-revealed

[Tom]

Yep China will snag em' up...


Trinkies....mmmm mmmm mmmm!

[Robert Fischer]

The company was 100% at fault here.
The union did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

It's called Darwinism. If some P.O.S. company can't stay competitive and continue to pay their Executives and still pay off their Debts well enough that they don't have to finagle through Chapter 11 and liquidation without significant pay-cuts to the employees, that is 100% on the COMPANY.

Is there blind hate because this company has had enough media impact to make the garbage they sell "an iconic American product" ?? Or is there blind hide because anything associated with unions makes us think of corrupt labor practices??

I don't get it.

[Robert Fischer]

It seems like Hostess has some serious entitlement issues.

They think they should be ENTITLED to suck the company dry, rack up debt, pay themselves and their executives, and enter into chapter 11 bankruptcy???

If you just look at the sequence of events without the propaganda, it looks an awful lot like they started this whole process in the beginning with the following INTENT:
1. get as much money out knowing that:



a. we'll pay for it w/ pay/pension cuts or


b. take advantage of Liquidation

[Tom]

No, the real thieves here are the workers who walked away from a job and now expect the tax payers to take care of them.

The company was willing to proved jobs - the leeches chose not to take them.

They should not get on penny of unemployment.

[Robert Fischer]

No, the real thieves here are the workers who walked away from a job and now expect the tax payers to take care of them.

The company was willing to proved jobs - the leeches chose not to take them.

They should not get on penny of unemployment.

this is a legal issue.

What does the law say?

I know that if these employees had simply quit, rather than accept pay and pension cuts - there would not be unemployment benefits.

However in a situation like this, where the company liquidates, the employees are eligible for unemployment benefits.

I would also assume that these employees had a contract regarding their pensions and their salaries.
This would prevent the company from legally changing the pay / cutting the pensions without a new contract.

Refusal to accept a new contract isn't grounds for denying unemployment benefits.

[Tom]

Refusal to accept a new contract isn't grounds for denying unemployment benefits.

It should be.

*sing*

Look for the Union Label,
Worn by those who aren't quite stable

[Robert Fischer]

^^
those chocolate iced cupcakes will be missed

[JustRalph]

I suppose I can do a search and find your past posts against the auto bailout by Obama then?





The company was 100% at fault here.
The union did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

It's called Darwinism. If some P.O.S. company can't stay competitive and continue to pay their Executives and still pay off their Debts well enough that they don't have to finagle through Chapter 11 and liquidation without significant pay-cuts to the employees, that is 100% on the COMPANY.

Is there blind hate because this company has had enough media impact to make the garbage they sell "an iconic American product" ?? Or is there blind hide because anything associated with unions makes us think of corrupt labor practices??

I don't get it.

[lsbets]

It seems like Hostess has some serious entitlement issues.

They think they should be ENTITLED to suck the company dry, rack up debt, pay themselves and their executives, and enter into chapter 11 bankruptcy???

If you just look at the sequence of events without the propaganda, it looks an awful lot like they started this whole process in the beginning with the following INTENT:
1. get as much money out knowing that:



a. we'll pay for it w/ pay/pension cuts or


b. take advantage of Liquidation


Not quite. The owners and lenders pumped a ton of money into the company after the last bankruptcy:

To allow Hostess to emerge from bankruptcy in 2009, Silver Point, Monarch, and the other lenders agreed to provide a new secured loan of about $360 million. They also forgave half of the existing $450 million of debt and exchanged the other half -- $225 million -- for payment-in-kind loans, a kind of financing typically used in high-risk situations. The loans had relatively high interest rates of 8% and 5% (reflecting Hostess's above-average default risk after bankruptcy). Thus, at the end of the first bankruptcy, Hostess came away not only with concessions from both lenders and unions but with $490 million of fresh capital ($360 million plus Ripplewood's $130 million) -- and Ripplewood's presumed hands-on operational expertise.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

more:

As revenue declined, the company continued to burn cash -- in the second half of 2011, the rate was $2 million a week. The liquidity crunch forced Ripplewood in the early spring of 2011 to pump in $40 million more in return for more equity as well as debt that was subordinate to that held by Silver Point and Monarch. In August -- to save a company teetering on the edge of fiscal calamity and forced liquidation -- Silver Point, Monarch, and the group of other lenders put up an additional $30 million to see if a negotiated turnaround was possible.

If they started with the intent, as you say to "get as much money out", they did a shitty job considering they were pumping money in.

[TJDave]

With all the anti union sentiment one would think this board's makeup is top heavy with owner/management.

Somehow, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

For 12 years I managed a group of non-union engineers in a company which had a unionized workforce in the factory, so yeah I had a first hand glimpse of the greedy corrosive destructive impact the union had. biggest bunch of whiners and babies you'll every see.

I left that company and went to a small non-union competitor about 13 years ago. we've survived and have grown. not surprisingly the old company shut it's doors about 5 years ago.

[tbwinner]

Off to the local grocery store to raid the Hostess display and sell them on eBay as any good capitalist would do. Check it out, boxes are selling between $10 and $20....

Who said the free market was dead? ;)

[HUSKER55]

DID you read that earlier post about how they were made?

[Tom]

With all the anti union sentiment one would think this board's makeup is top heavy with owner/management.

Somehow, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

Weak minds love unions.

[newtothegame]

The company was 100% at fault here.
The union did exactly what they were supposed to be doing.

It's called Darwinism. If some P.O.S. company can't stay competitive and continue to pay their Executives and still pay off their Debts well enough that they don't have to finagle through Chapter 11 and liquidation without significant pay-cuts to the employees, that is 100% on the COMPANY.

Is there blind hate because this company has had enough media impact to make the garbage they sell "an iconic American product" ?? Or is there blind hide because anything associated with unions makes us think of corrupt labor practices??

I don't get it.
Are ya sure???? So would you be suggesting to just screw the company since they cant be profitable and control their executive pay? Let them fail? if so, I agree!!!!! By the way, did you see the USPS...??? A Failing company that can not remain competitive, pay off their debts, and continue to pay their execs hefty increases.......lmao
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/)

"Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/), for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.
Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-postal-service/), Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/) was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/), chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mary-anne-gibbons/), general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/)’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/)‘s."
:bang:

[JustRalph]

Oops

[PICSIX]

I don't know if you've seen the reports on Twinkie ingredients. One guy wrote a book on it. I don't think this helped sales.

www.divinecaroline.com/22106/35281-twinkie-ingredients-revealed

Look at the ingredients list of many processed foods and you'll find all sorts of this crap! :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[098poi]

I love these the most!

[sammy the sage]

This will make for some more entertaining discussion/debate...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/11/petition-wants-obama-to-save-twinkies-149789.html

Basically want a bail-out from feds.... :faint:

[sammy the sage]

and course THE REAL cost of health care for idiots who support it...

http://www.examiner.com/article/walmart-walkout-1-000-strikes-expected-9-day-period-1

as Walmart knocks down most everybody to part time by Feb./13

Funny.....all these people striking....don't see the bottom line....what'd they think would happen...

[pandy]

We've talked about the nutritional aspect of Hostess cakes but in all fairness there are thousands of companies making millions selling products that can be classified as unhealthy. Lots of things are bad for you, especially in excess. So it may not have anything to do with that. I know when I was a kid it seemed like Hostess had a lot less competition in the snack cake/sweet segment.

I feel bad for the employees who didn't want this.

[HUSKER55]

HEY pandy, I love those things as well.....and no I am not looking into what is in them :D .....besides my teeth :D

[Robert Goren]

An 8% or 32% doesn't really matter. It would only postpone the inevitable. This has been worse run company over the last few years since Carly was running HP. The whole operation has the smell of Bain-type move. The brand names maybe worth than company. I guess we shall see when they sell them.

[Robert Goren]

I love these the most! I love those "pies" too. Every grocery chain has their own house brand of them. I was never sure if Hostess made them too or some body else did.

[JustRalph]

An 8% or 32% doesn't really matter. It would only postpone the inevitable. This has been worse run company over the last few years since Carly was running HP. The whole operation has the smell of Bain-type move. The brand names maybe worth than company. I guess we shall see when they sell them.

Yep, they were fools. They put 500 million into the company trying to save it.

Somebody will buy the rights, make the product in Mexico and make a killing.

[wisconsin]

An 8% or 32% doesn't really matter. It would only postpone the inevitable. This has been worse run company over the last few years since Carly was running HP. The whole operation has the smell of Bain-type move. The brand names maybe worth than company. I guess we shall see when they sell them.

Bain-type move? Really? Is that the new buzz word? Did you say the same thing 25 years ago when Beatrice was taking over a boatload of companies? What about Kraft or Nestle inhaling loads of companies? They sunk a lot of cash into Hostess, but you were not paying any attention, were you?

[Tom]

Yep, they were fools. They put 500 million into the company trying to save it.

Somebody will buy the rights, make the product in Mexico and make a killing.

What did the UNION to try to save it?
I hope to HELL all those jobs go to Mexico.
As long I get my cupcakes, I don't really care how many union boys lose their jobs, homes, whatever. Me Me Me....I will adopt the union boy philosophy :D

Time for the worthless labor force in this country to learn a good lesson. These idiots voted themselves out of work and they voted the coutnry out of prosperity. The truth is that all unskilled labor in this country is now competing for the same jobs as all unskilled labor word-wide. Enjoy the trip, bots, you voted for it. I don't see much competition for real jobs on a picket line.....:lol:

[FantasticDan]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6244_10151141983306275_929564271_n.png

[Tom]

Daily Kos?
Worker's Gazzette?
Bottom line, 18K out of work that could be working today.
If they can find cheaper labor off shore, they are nuts to not go there.

The workers voted for the anit-business OBama reign of terror, so now they can see how nice it is too live in a dired up coutnry.

[HUSKER55]

YOU do know there is a petition to socialize the bakery for twinkies and it was sent to BO

I guess it only needs 25000 signitures and they already have 18000

[wisconsin]

Daily Kos?
Worker's Gazzette?
Bottom line, 18K out of work that could be working today.
If they can find cheaper labor off shore, they are nuts to not go there.

The workers voted for the anit-business OBama reign of terror, so now they can see how nice it is too live in a dired up coutnry.

The Teamster's union was all for the offer to buy a 25% stake in the compnay in the first bankruptcy, but the bakers and confection union said NO GO. Had they owned 25%, they could have had more leverage and even gotten finaincing to buy the remaining 75%.

[Mike at A+]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Romney buys Hostess and reopens it with non-union workers?

[HUSKER55]

:lol:

[Pace Cap'n]

The workers voted for the anit-business OBama reign of terror, so now they can see how nice it is too live in a dired up coutnry.

Tom's the only guy I know whose typos enhance his message.

[Tom]

Hard to type with a cat sleeping on your arm!
But yes.....it was kind of neat.

[Jay Trotter]

Hard to type with a cat sleeping on your arm!Tom, a cat person! :eek: I would have figured him a dog man all the way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01829/Monkey-Cat_1829771i.jpg

[elysiantraveller]

....<PHOTO>....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Bain-style crony capitalism"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anything to get a jab in there eh?...

Couldn't be a failed business model...

Had to be Romney's fault.

I think I've got a new catch-phrase, "keeping it Bain-style." Its a lot like "Keeping it real" only much more dark and sinister. :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6244_10151141983306275_929564271_n.png

Objective source there Dan....

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Organizing-Bargaining/Hostess-Pattern-of-Mismanagement-and-Debt-Caused-Its-Collapse

[ElKabong]

Dan rolling out AFL-CIO talking points for ammo..... LMAO

[Valuist]

Its nice to see the workers have their principles. I'd love to hear the dinner discussion with the wife and kids; "we've got no money coming in, but they didn't show us up!

Good luck paying bills with principles. And I hear if you put enough ketchup on them, principles can be quite tasty.

[horses4courses]

I have the oven warming up.

A cross between blintzes and Twinkies.

Blinkies....yummmmm :cool:

Got Costco and Wal Mart on speed dial......... ;)

[JustRalph]

Bain-Style = Successful and profitable

[cj]

http://cdn.asherbond.com/so-what-does-cloud-mean-anymore/asher-bond-scales-horizontally-as-a-service-with-a-little-debbie-cloud-cake.jpg

[JustRalph]

Hmmm...........Looks familiar............. :lol:

That Little Debbie Bitch is now the Teamsters number 1 target!

[Actor]

The last sentence/quote speaks mountains about the entitlement society that extended unemployment has created:
"But if I have to take the cuts they're talking about I can get more from unemployment."But you can't argue with the logic.

It isn't rocket science to see that the company is doomed. Why prolong your own agony by accepting a cut? Get to work on your resume! :bang:

[JustRalph]

Never

[hcap]

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

Even as it played the numbers game, Hostess had to face chaos in the corner office at the worst possible time. Driscoll, the CEO, departed suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive” compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

When the Teamsters saw the court motion, Ken Hall, the union’s secretary-treasurer and No. 2 man, was irate. So much, he thought, for what he described as Driscoll’s “happy talk” about “shared sacrifice.”

The board replaced Driscoll with Greg Rayburn, a restructuring expert Hostess had hired as a consultant only nine days earlier. Rayburn was a serial turnaround specialist who had worked with such high-profile distressed businesses as WorldCom, Muzak Holdings, and New York City Off-Track Betting. He became Hostess’s sixth CEO in a decade. Within a month of taking over, Rayburn had to preside over a public-relations fiasco. Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer — as the company was crumbling — four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%. (Driscoll had also received a pay raise back then.) The Teamsters saw this as more management shenanigans. “Looting” is how Hall described it in TV interviews.

Rayburn announced that the pay of the four top executives would go down to $1 for the year, but that their full salaries would be reinstated no later than Jan. 1. Hostess pays Rayburn $125,000 a month, according to court filings.

______________

Hostess Twinkies’ former CEO tripled his salary earlier this year to $2.55 million while the company knew it was heading towards bankruptcy, according to a statement by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.

And a number of top executives reportedly saw massive pay raises, some nearly doubling their salary. And now the new CEO is blaming the unions for the company’s demise.

Ah, another CEO who courageously blames the union for his company’s failure, while omitting the part about the company tripling his immediate predecessor’s pay, and reportedly doubling the salaries of other top executives, while knowing that the company was on life support. Damn unions, indeed.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

But you can't argue with the logic.

It isn't rocket science to see that the company is doomed. Why prolong your own agony by accepting a cut? Get to work on your resume! :bang:

Oh yes, and allow the rest of us who still go to work to pay for you while you do so. Leeches - nothing but stinking leeches. 23 million out of work and this bunch a scumbags chooses to give them up.

We should deport the lot of them. American would better off with this group of takers.

[Rookies]

Bain-Style = Successful and profitable

Yep, for the rich owners, managers and investors. Thank you- Mr. Gekko.:rolleyes:

As for the workers of those deep sixed companies- "let them eat cake"... on the dole.

Sounds "Fair & Balanced" to me.:lol:

[ElKabong]

Yep, for the rich owners, managers and investors. Thank you- Mr. Gekko.:rolleyes:

As for the workers of those deep sixed companies- "let them eat cake"... on the dole.

Sounds "Fair & Balanced" to me.:lol:

"Rich" managers? You're definitely "challenged" as they say.

Envy is a sign of ignorance. Ditch it.

[newtothegame]

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/26/hostess-twinkies-bankrupt/

Even as it played the numbers game, Hostess had to face chaos in the corner office at the worst possible time. Driscoll, the CEO, departed suddenly and without explanation in March. It may have been that the Teamsters no longer felt it could trust him. In early February, Hostess had asked the bankruptcy judge to approve a sweet new employment deal for Driscoll. Its terms guaranteed him a base annual salary of $1.5 million, plus cash incentives and “long-term incentive” compensation of up to $2 million. If Hostess liquidated or Driscoll were fired without cause, he’d still get severance pay of $1.95 million as long as he honored a noncompete agreement.

When the Teamsters saw the court motion, Ken Hall, the union’s secretary-treasurer and No. 2 man, was irate. So much, he thought, for what he described as Driscoll’s “happy talk” about “shared sacrifice.”

The board replaced Driscoll with Greg Rayburn, a restructuring expert Hostess had hired as a consultant only nine days earlier. Rayburn was a serial turnaround specialist who had worked with such high-profile distressed businesses as WorldCom, Muzak Holdings, and New York City Off-Track Betting. He became Hostess’s sixth CEO in a decade. Within a month of taking over, Rayburn had to preside over a public-relations fiasco. Some unsecured creditors had informed the court that last summer — as the company was crumbling — four top Hostess executives received raises of up to 80%. (Driscoll had also received a pay raise back then.) The Teamsters saw this as more management shenanigans. “Looting” is how Hall described it in TV interviews.

Rayburn announced that the pay of the four top executives would go down to $1 for the year, but that their full salaries would be reinstated no later than Jan. 1. Hostess pays Rayburn $125,000 a month, according to court filings.

______________

Hostess Twinkies’ former CEO tripled his salary earlier this year to $2.55 million while the company knew it was heading towards bankruptcy, according to a statement by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.

And a number of top executives reportedly saw massive pay raises, some nearly doubling their salary. And now the new CEO is blaming the unions for the company’s demise.

Ah, another CEO who courageously blames the union for his company’s failure, while omitting the part about the company tripling his immediate predecessor’s pay, and reportedly doubling the salaries of other top executives, while knowing that the company was on life support. Damn unions, indeed.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Harry, it's amazing you on the left continue to talk about executives pay....did you not see the link I posted earlier in this thread regarding the FAILING USPS and their executive pay?? Or is that somehow different? :lol:

[hcap]

Harry, it's amazing you on the left continue to talk about executives pay....did you not see the link I posted earlier in this thread regarding the FAILING USPS and their executive pay?? Or is that somehow different? :lol: I did not see the post. What #?

[Tom]

Yep, for the rich owners, managers and investors. Thank you- Mr. Gekko.:rolleyes:

As for the workers of those deep sixed companies- "let them eat cake"... on the dole.

Sounds "Fair & Balanced" to me.:lol:

Is the truth somehow reduced by the conversion to metric?
You post nonsense.

Here's he deal - Hostess offered jobs, they refused.
They do not deserve pity or unemployment.
Sell the rights and the brick and mortar to some who will re-open without a union.

Anyway your break up a union is a good way.

[HUSKER55]

HCAP, i think he is referring to #37

[Moniker]

The fact that anyone could support this kind of cut throat business practice while unemployment is a chief domestic concern makes my head spin. These greedy business moguls have no concern and no interest in the fate of the company, either outcome, liquidation or the employees simply accepting the salary cut benefits the owners and investors, so why should they care? I'll tell you why; because executives have a responsibility to their employees. This responisbility is completely disregarded when executives grant themselves hefty raises in the face of the company bankrupting, while expecting their workers to sacrifice their pay to save the sinking ship. Any person with a single rational, moral cell in their brain would know this is completely backwards.

So when these workers choose not to be handily bent over, and the higher ups shrug their shoulders and choose instead to make a killing by simply washing their hands of it, how exactly are the workers to blame? If they just take the lumps it sets a precedent, and the men and women who write their checks will just keep taking, and taking, until they hit rock bottom. (minimum wage) Is this supposed to be an acceptable outcome for people who have families to support and depend on the income they've grown accustomed to? My answer would be no, and so standing up against it becomes their only option, and as a result they risk losing their jobs, but it's a risk they have little choice in taking.

Through all of this however the biggest headscratcher to me is that people then blame unemployment and economic issues on the federal government. :confused: It's as though Americans are unaware exactly what a free economy is, and so expect the president to somehow fix everything, while at the same time shreiking "socialism!!!" whenever a commander in chief does attempt direct intervention. Can you say hipocracy?

In reality, as a part of a free economy, it is our responsibility as the consumers to hold these companies accountable when they attempt to abuse our fellow working class fellows. The simple fact is people are just too lazy, or just don't care enough, and so unions become the only viable option available a worker who is being taken advantage of.

So all that said it seems there are 2 ways these problems will ultimately be resolved. Human nature itself changes so that more executives start fulfilling their resposibility to their workers first, and their own pocket second - or we, as members of a free economy fulfill our responsibility to hold these executives accountable for their selfish business practices that come at the cost of American jobs.

Neither seem likely in my eyes.

[newtothegame]

I did not see the post. What #?

#37

"Are ya sure???? So would you be suggesting to just screw the company since they cant be profitable and control their executive pay? Let them fail? if so, I agree!!!!! By the way, did you see the USPS...??? A Failing company that can not remain competitive, pay off their debts, and continue to pay their execs hefty increases.......lmao


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/)



"Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/), for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.
Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-postal-service/), Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/) was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/), chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mary-anne-gibbons/), general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/)’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/)‘s."
:bang:
__________________

[Tom]

The fact that anyone could support this kind of cut throat business practice while unemployment is a chief domestic concern makes my head spin. These greedy business moguls have no concern and no interest in the fate of the company, either outcome, liquidation or the employees simply accepting the salary cut benefits the owners and investors, so why should they care? I'll tell you why; because executives have a responsibility to their employees

Cut throat?
"I'll show them....I'll go out of business!" :lol:

the crime here is that greedy labor chooses to take public money away from those who really can't find jobs. Walking away from a job today should be grounds for deportation. Here's a clue for you - employees have a responsibility to their employers. what did the union do to help out?

[HUSKER55]

I see where the cost of a stamp is going up a penney. I am having trouble imaging that is all that is needed to solve the problem. They should raise it a dime and get solvent so the taxpayers don't have to bail them out

They need to restructure and limit home deliveries to 2 or 3 times a week.

In fact if all employers used direct deposit I would be happy with one day a week. All of my bills come online.

Ya know, if USPS were to give big brown a run for their money I am not sold that that would not be a good idea.

Just curious, how many of the ads and what not do you use? For me, I'm thinking once a week or once every two weeks would be fine. But right now I think Hostess is just the tip of the ice berg

[Moniker]

Yes, cut throat. More to the effect of "I'll pay you less, or if you won't accept less pay I'll give your job to an overseas worker to make a buck." To hell with out economic issues and rising unemployment, it's all about their own checkbook. That "ME ME ME!" mentality that you branded union participators with is not a trait of unions, it unfortunately is a trait of our race.

Let me first say, before you confuse my opinion on unions, that I see them as at best a necessary evil brought into necessity in an attempt to level the playing field between employer and emplyoee. (a very commonplace opinion, I'm aware.) So that being their original purpose, they played that role well when it was most needed, but over the last century as the two sides (employer and employee) have played see-saw trying to tip the scales back in their own favor, it has only served to hurt the worker. The fault lies with both sides, not just the unions as you are so convinced.

So to answer your question "what did the unions do to help out?" I say very little in this instance, they very well may have done more to hurt than to help. This is however just one battle in an ongoing war between business owners and unions, and seeing as how the union obviously failed in it's job to protect it's member's jobs, it can be chalked up as a win for the business owners.

Now I pose a question to you:
Where to, do you suppose we deport these yella-bellied chumps who were unfortunate enough to be on the side of a losing union? My vote would be the isle of misfits from that old stop motion christmas film! :D

[JustRalph]

In fact if all employers used direct deposit I would be happy with one day a week. All of my bills come online.

There is a huge portion of the economy that does not have this option. They don't use a bank at all. The Latino community is one that doesn't use banks. Many many minorities don't use banks. There are several reasons why.

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.

[Actor]

This may be a digression but...

Isn't it possible that the market for Twinkies just isn't there any more? The country is more conscious of healthy foods than they were 50 years ago. Diabetes is on the rise.

And wasn't it Twinkies that caused the assassination of the mayor of San Francisco?

[Moniker]

There is a huge portion of the economy that does not have this option. They don't use a bank at all. The Latino community is one that doesn't use banks. Many many minorities don't use banks. There are several reasons why.

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.


The company I work for offers that very "service" haha. I'm not aware of any charge since I've never bothered looking into it, I just use my local credit union.

[Actor]

Oh yes, and allow the rest of us who still go to work to pay for you while you do so.Unemployment is insurance paid for by premiums. It doesn't cost you anything.

[Actor]

Large companies have gone to offering these employees debit style card accounts. The paycheck goes directly on the card they carry in their wallet. I am personally familiar with one company that offers this system at a cost of 2% to the employees. Almost all of the Latino employees would rather pay the 2% than allow their pay to go into a bank account.I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between direct deposit to a checking account and having your pay do directly on a debit style card account. :confused:

Doesn't a bank handle the money either way?

[Moniker]

This may be a digression but...

Isn't it possible that the market for Twinkies just isn't there any more? The country is more conscious of healthy foods than they were 50 years ago. Diabetes is on the rise.

And wasn't it Twinkies that caused the assassination of the mayor of San Francisco?

I'm sure it is a contributing factor, and the blame for something of that nature rests squarely on the shoulders of the owners. It's their responsibility to ensure the product's sales and advertising. So if this is the largest contributor to the company's failure, then the the people responsible (the executives, who receive the largest sum of the company's revenue) should at least be HELPING to compensate for the decrease in sales with their own slice of the pie, while at the same time devising a method to make their product more marketable for their own sake as well as their workers.

[Moniker]

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between direct deposit to a checking account and having your pay do directly on a debit style card account. :confused:

Doesn't a bank handle the money either way?

The way that it's done, through my company at least, is that your check is essentially given to a credit card company (most likely visa or mastercard in some cases, but in this case I believe it's a small credit card company) and they handle the money directly, and supposedly do with it what they please.

[ElKabong]

Unemployment is insurance paid for by premiums. It doesn't cost you anything.

Like hell you say. The premiums come out of company funds. Those funds could be going to paychecks for people that are working.

Don't get me wrong, I think UE benefits are worthy, but not over 6 months worth. After a half a year, one needs to get going.

[sammy the sage]

I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between direct deposit to a checking account and having your pay do directly on a debit style card account. :confused:

Doesn't a bank handle the money either way?

Back AWAY from a keyboard...please...I beg you...for your OWN sake. :faint:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I was all but run off of a job for not acquiescing to their insistence that I use direct deposit, dang, almost 20 years ago now. That was the beginning of the end for me and banks and me and real jobs. :D

[JustRalph]

The way that it's done, through my company at least, is that your check is essentially given to a credit card company (most likely visa or mastercard in some cases, but in this case I believe it's a small credit card company) and they handle the money directly, and supposedly do with it what they please.

Exactly. Credit card companies don't have the same rules as banks. Think about those who have legal judgements or IRS judgements against them.

[Tom]

Yes, cut throat. More to the effect of "I'll pay you less, or if you won't accept less pay I'll give your job to an overseas worker to make a buck."

Any business has the right to go out of it.
No one has a right to any job. No one has the responsibility to hire anyone.

Grow up.

btw, what local are you in? :D

[Actor]

The way that it's done, through my company at least, is that your check is essentially given to a credit card company (most likely visa or mastercard in some cases, but in this case I believe it's a small credit card company) and they handle the money directly, and supposedly do with it what they please.I know an individual who gets his pay deposited to a debit card. It's the company's policy. He claims that he cannot get any cash from the card. His landlord does not take plastic which makes it hard to pay his rent. He also claims that no bank will let him open a checking account.

Whether any of this is true I do not know, but it's not the first time I've heard of such a thing.

[Actor]

Like hell you say. The premiums come out of company funds. Those funds could be going to paychecks for people that are working.Yes and no.

I used to be a bookkeeper for a small business. One of the checks I wrote each month was for "payroll insurance", i.e., unemployment insurance. Another was to F.I.C.A. for the matching Social Security contribution an employer is required to make for each employee. Payroll insurance, F.I.C.A., employer contributions to health insurance, the employees' actual check, etc., were all charged to "Payroll Expense." As far as the business is concerned they're all part of the cost of having employees.

Your argument that "Those funds could be going to paychecks for people that are working" could apply equally to F.I.C.A., health insurance, etc. That money could just be paid to the employees who could then decide whether they want the insurance. As the law stands employees are not given that choice. Their participation is mandatory at least so far as payroll insurance and F.I.C.A.

It's a matter of POV whether the employer or employee is paying the premiums, but ordinarily the taxpayer does not.

[Actor]

I'm sure it is a contributing factor, and the blame for something of that nature rests squarely on the shoulders of the owners. It's their responsibility to ensure the product's sales and advertising. So if this is the largest contributor to the company's failure, then the the people responsible (the executives, who receive the largest sum of the company's revenue) should at least be HELPING to compensate for the decrease in sales with their own slice of the pie, while at the same time devising a method to make their product more marketable for their own sake as well as their workers.Seems to me that some attempt to diversify into more salable products would also be in order. Surely that equipment and those employees could be used to make something other than Twinkies.

[Tom]

Seems to me that some attempt to diversify into more salable products would also be in order. Surely that equipment and those employees could be used to make something other than Twinkies.


Duh.
Do you have any clue what the line card for Hostess is?
And, more importantly, who the hell are you to tell them what to do?

[Tom]

zGKsWrpsKtI

[wisconsin]

Yes and no.

I used to be a bookkeeper for a small business. One of the checks I wrote each month was for "payroll insurance", i.e., unemployment insurance. Another was to F.I.C.A. for the matching Social Security contribution an employer is required to make for each employee. Payroll insurance, F.I.C.A., employer contributions to health insurance, the employees' actual check, etc., were all charged to "Payroll Expense." As far as the business is concerned they're all part of the cost of having employees.

Your argument that "Those funds could be going to paychecks for people that are working" could apply equally to F.I.C.A., health insurance, etc. That money could just be paid to the employees who could then decide whether they want the insurance. As the law stands employees are not given that choice. Their participation is mandatory at least so far as payroll insurance and F.I.C.A.

It's a matter of POV whether the employer or employee is paying the premiums, but ordinarily the taxpayer does not.


When I owned my gas station, I had to pay into the state UI, and left $20k there when I got out, never had anyone claim against me, but that money is gone forever. The compnay never gets it back no matter what.

Then there was quarterly FUTA, federal UI. On top of that, and this is where most people miss the cost of employment, I had to match FICA. That's right, For those who do not understand, the employee was taxed 7.65% and I had to match that amount! Fica is Medicare and Social Security. Has nothing to do with "insurance".

If you have an employee making $10 per hour, it's really $10.765 per hour plus UI.

[Moniker]

Any business has the right to go out of it.
No one has a right to any job. No one has the responsibility to hire anyone.

Grow up.

btw, what local are you in? :D

They have the "right" to put the good people who they employ out of work at the drop of a hat? No. They have the ability, that does not make it "right". It is in fact just the opposite, it is WRONG. And they have a need to hire people, not a responsibility. Once they have, they do have a responsibility to the people they've hired, just as the people they've hired have a responsibility to them. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I'm from western New York, about 30 minutes outside of Buffalo. Not a sunny city, but the whole area gets fallout from how good their chicken wings are. :D

[JustRalph]

They have the "right" to put the good people who they employ out of work at the drop of a hat? No. They have the ability, that does not make it "right". It is in fact just the opposite, it is WRONG. And they have a need to hire people, not a responsibility. Once they have, they do have a responsibility to the people they've hired, just as the people they've hired have a responsibility to them. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I'm from western New York, about 30 minutes outside of Buffalo. Not a sunny city, but the whole area gets fallout from how good their chicken wings are. :D

In a "right to work"" state, you can walk away from just about any employee you

Want. For just about any reason. Been on the management side of that one before. All the lawyers in the world couldn't change it.

As a Union Rep I saw the other side too. Mostly civil service protection cases. But if you have no union or civil service protection the boss can say goodbye any time he wants

[wisconsin]

They have the "right" to put the good people who they employ out of work at the drop of a hat? No. They have the ability, that does not make it "right". It is in fact just the opposite, it is WRONG. And they have a need to hire people, not a responsibility. Once they have, they do have a responsibility to the people they've hired, just as the people they've hired have a responsibility to them. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I'm from western New York, about 30 minutes outside of Buffalo. Not a sunny city, but the whole area gets fallout from how good their chicken wings are. :D


Once again, people mistake a job as a right. It is not a right, it is a priviledge. What's best for the company is the only "right".

[Moniker]

Once again, people mistake a job as a right. It is not a right, it is a priviledge. What's best for the company is the only "right".

A job is not a right, but fair treatment at your job is. Fair treatment meaning expecting not to be layed off so your company can hire someone in china to do your job for 1/10 of the cost. As profitable as it may be, and I'm aware profit is the object of a business, it selfishly jeapordizes our economy and our country, and so in my eyes might as well be considered treason.

[Moniker]

In a "right to work"" state, you can walk away from just about any employee you

Want. For just about any reason. Been on the management side of that one before. All the lawyers in the world couldn't change it.

As a Union Rep I saw the other side too. Mostly civil service protection cases. But if you have no union or civil service protection the boss can say goodbye any time he wants

I'm not arguing the legality of it, I'm arguing the morality. I'm aware that many business owners are capable and all too willing to get rid of some employees for less than ethical reasons, and I disagree with it whole heartedly. Will that change anything? Doubtful... But change has to start somewhere, and usually it's with the young and idealistic such as myself. "be the change you want to see in the world" as they say.

[Tom]

A job is not a right, but fair treatment at your job is. Fair treatment meaning expecting not to be layed off so your company can hire someone in china to do your job for 1/10 of the cost. As profitable as it may be, and I'm aware profit is the object of a business, it selfishly jeapordizes our economy and our country, and so in my eyes might as well be considered treason.

They are not hiring anyone anywhere to do those jobs.
They are selling rights to the products and getting out.
Hopefully, the buyers are smart enough to know that this union is not fit to work for them.

[Moniker]

They are not hiring anyone anywhere to do those jobs.
They are selling rights to the products and getting out.
Hopefully, the buyers are smart enough to know that this union is not fit to work for them.

You're right. I was getting off topic and speaking more in general, my apologies. I take issue with the specifics in this case as well. The higher ups grant themselves a raise, then propose pay cuts for the workers, and blame the company going under on the resistance to these pay cuts. Completely unreasonable, but again, what do they care? They make a pretty penny off of the company's liquidation.

[mostpost]

Are ya sure???? So would you be suggesting to just screw the company since they cant be profitable and control their executive pay? Let them fail? if so, I agree!!!!! By the way, did you see the USPS...??? A Failing company that can not remain competitive, pay off their debts, and continue to pay their execs hefty increases.......lmao
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/)

"Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/), for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings.
Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-postal-service/), Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/) was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk.

Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/), chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/mary-anne-gibbons/), general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans.

In fact, Mr. Burgoyne (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/ellis-burgoyne/)’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/patrick-donahoe/)‘s."
:bang:
It is amazing how you always have to bring the Post Office into the conversation. Even more amazing is how you always get it wrong. The increased compensation of the USPS executives was primarily a result of an increase in their retirement benefits. This does not necessarily mean that USPS increased its contribution. One portion of the retirement plan is a thrift savings plan. An employee can contribute up to five percent of his salary and have it matched by USPS. There are several funds which the money can be invested in and over the last year the fund based on the stock market earned 24%. If a person has been in the TSP for many years, and if he is high salaried and if he invests wisely, it is not inconceivable that his retirement benefits could not have increased substantially over the year.

On the other hand the executives of Hostess voted themselves raises of up to 300% even as the company was going bankrupt.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... it selfishly jeapordizes our economy and our country, and so in my eyes might as well be considered treason.

Couldn't it also be argued that the other far end of the spectrum, that of organized labor acting as borderline extortionists in their demands and in the process price themselves in such a way that foreign labor becomes such an alluring alternative are just as "treasonous" if the gauge you are using is outcomes as a consequence of policy?

[Moniker]

Couldn't it also be argued that the other far end of the spectrum, that of organized labor acting as borderline extortionists in their demands and in the process price themselves in such a way that foreign labor becomes such an alluring alternative are just as "treasonous" if the gauge you are using is outcomes as a consequence of policy?

It certainly could, in a case where employees used a unionized position to make unreasonable demands of their employer. While that's far from unheard of, I believe it's much more common that employers try to take advantage of their employees and the union has to play defense.

[JustRalph]

Breaking: Twinkies saved........... union and company talking about mediation.


10k Assholes on Ebay just changed their auctions to "Buy it now!"

[FantasticDan]

Breaking: Twinkies saved........... union and company talking about mediation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-judge-hostess-union-agree-to-mediation-20121119,0,2355592.story

[newtothegame]

It is amazing how you always have to bring the Post Office into the conversation. Even more amazing is how you always get it wrong. The increased compensation of the USPS executives was primarily a result of an increase in their retirement benefits. This does not necessarily mean that USPS increased its contribution. One portion of the retirement plan is a thrift savings plan. An employee can contribute up to five percent of his salary and have it matched by USPS. There are several funds which the money can be invested in and over the last year the fund based on the stock market earned 24%. If a person has been in the TSP for many years, and if he is high salaried and if he invests wisely, it is not inconceivable that his retirement benefits could not have increased substantially over the year.

On the other hand the executives of Hostess voted themselves raises of up to 300% even as the company was going bankrupt.
Touching a nerve?? Good! And what part did I get wrong? All I did was post a story about the compensation post office execs receieve and how it is increasing. I could care less if its retirement or weekly pay...someone is paying for an increase for a FAILING OPERATION! You all want to bash the private sector when the same thing happens yet turn a blind eye when it happens in the public sector.
In the private sector....if you cant be competitive you go under.....
Same should happen to all of those public sector jobs!

[Tom]

One portion of the retirement plan is a thrift savings plan. An employee can contribute up to five percent of his salary and have it matched by USPS.

Is this not a contribution?

[Tom]

Breaking: Twinkies saved........... union and company talking about mediation.


10k Assholes on Ebay just changed their auctions to "Buy it now!"


Anyone wanna buy a shitload of cupcakes?

[newtothegame]

Is this not a contribution?
Tom, he constantly uses terms like "maybe" and other vague terms to keep from having to take a stand. No worries, we know what he is all about.
I find it quite funny not one lib has come out and said a word about the increases that execs at the post office recieved while FAILING yet they bash the other sectors.....It's quite telling who they are and what they are about.
As long as it benefits THEM, its quite alright.
No different in the taxes...as long as its not their taxes, lets raise em!!! :lol:
They do a great job at trying to manage others money lol

[NJ Stinks]

I was all but run off of a job for not acquiescing to their insistence that I use direct deposit, dang, almost 20 years ago now. That was the beginning of the end for me and banks and me and real jobs. :D

Now that sounds like the John we know and endure! ;)

Actually, for much of my married life I would call my wife on payday and ask if my paycheck arrived in the mail. I considered that bit of drama one of the small pleasures in life until the bastards made me go to direct deposit! :(

[mostpost]

Touching a nerve?? Good! And what part did I get wrong? All I did was post a story about the compensation post office execs receieve and how it is increasing. I could care less if its retirement or weekly pay...someone is paying for an increase for a FAILING OPERATION! You all want to bash the private sector when the same thing happens yet turn a blind eye when it happens in the public sector.
In the private sector....if you cant be competitive you go under.....
Same should happen to all of those public sector jobs!
Read the last paragraph of the story you posted in #37. You still won't get it.

[newtothegame]

Ohh, I get it.....apparently YOU don't. How long has the USPS been losing money??? And NOW, when it comes to light, they want to say that for 2012 they will not get bonuses or raises?? lmao....nice touch!
Take the kitty for all you can then and only trhen say "we wont get raises this year"....
Should close their butts down if they cant MANAGE a business properly!

[mostpost]

Tom, he constantly uses terms like "maybe" and other vague terms to keep from having to take a stand. No worries, we know what he is all about.
I find it quite funny not one lib has come out and said a word about the increases that execs at the post office recieved while FAILING yet they bash the other sectors.....It's quite telling who they are and what they are about.
As long as it benefits THEM, its quite alright.
No different in the taxes...as long as its not their taxes, lets raise em!!! :lol:
They do a great job at trying to manage others money lol

There is no maybe, so-called raises to Postal Execs are not the same as those to Hostess execs. Hostess execs put the company in the toilet through bad business decisions.

Because of the short shelf life of some of their products-notably their breads-
Hostess maintained many bakeries across the country. To cut costs the execs decided to use newly developed enzymes which were said to preserve the product longer and close many of their bakeries.

They ran into two problems. The enzymes changed the taste and the texture of the bread, making it gummy. Consolidating the bakeries did not result in the savings they expected since the cost of transporting the product over the greater distances offset the expected savings. Furthermore, the decreased frequency of deliveries to the retail stores resulted in half empty shelves.

The Hostess execs, who were not bakery trained, made bad business decisions; did not make pension contributions that they contracted to make; attempted to make draconian cuts to employees wages and benefits and awarded themselves huge salary increases and severance packages.

But somehow you think the fault lies with the union. There is a word from the past that describes your insistence on defending those execs. That word is Quisling.

[newtothegame]

There is no maybe, so-called raises to Postal Execs are not the same as those to Hostess execs. Hostess execs put the company in the toilet through bad business decisions.

Because of the short shelf life of some of their products-notably their breads-
Hostess maintained many bakeries across the country. To cut costs the execs decided to use newly developed enzymes which were said to preserve the product longer and close many of their bakeries.

They ran into two problems. The enzymes changed the taste and the texture of the bread, making it gummy. Consolidating the bakeries did not result in the savings they expected since the cost of transporting the product over the greater distances offset the expected savings. Furthermore, the decreased frequency of deliveries to the retail stores resulted in half empty shelves.

The Hostess execs, who were not bakery trained, made bad business decisions; did not make pension contributions that they contracted to make; attempted to make draconian cuts to employees wages and benefits and awarded themselves huge salary increases and severance packages.

But somehow you think the fault lies with the union. There is a word from the past that describes your insistence on defending those execs. That word is Quisling.

My post had NOTHING to do with unions, my post had EVERYTHING to do with execs getting pay raises that you libs always cry about. Yet when you are shown the same thing in the public sector (like it or not, the USPS has been poorly managed), you try to deflect.
We get it...you will ALWAYS take the party line.
Bad management is bad management no matter how you spin it. And if a company, public or private sector can NOT remain viable through good management, they should FOLD UP!

[Tom]

That word is Quisling.

Hey now!
Get yer own material.

[lsbets]

so-called raises to Postal Execs

They are not so called raises. The performance of the underlying funds in someone's TSP or 401k is in no way counted as compensation.

Question - given that the USPS is bleeding money and will have to be bailed out by taxpayers, do you feel that postal workers should get raises?

Congress won't allow the reforms to need to be made at the USPS to be made until it is a full blown crisis, and given that fact, I don't necessarily think pay should be frozen. Should it be limited to just COLA until the mess is fixed? It's not the employees fault, for the most part the USPS is really good at what they do, but they don't charge enough and the business model is outdated. As I said, the mess won't be fixed until the taxpayers have to make good on the debts that the USPS can't pay, so its going to be a while until any reform happens.

[OntheRail]

Tom, he constantly uses terms like "maybe" and other vague terms to keep from having to take a stand. No worries, we know what he is all about.
I find it quite funny not one lib has come out and said a word about the increases that execs at the post office recieved while FAILING yet they bash the other sectors.....It's quite telling who they are and what they are about.
As long as it benefits THEM, its quite alright.
No different in the taxes...as long as its not their taxes, lets raise em!!! :lol:
They do a great job at trying to manage others money lol

No they like to think they can... cause if they did... we'd not be in a hole so deep we can smell the fried rice. :eek:

[mostpost]

My post had NOTHING to do with unions, my post had EVERYTHING to do with execs getting pay raises that you libs always cry about. Yet when you are shown the same thing in the public sector (like it or not, the USPS has been poorly managed), you try to deflect.
We get it...you will ALWAYS take the party line.
Bad management is bad management no matter how you spin it. And if a company, public or private sector can NOT remain viable through good management, they should FOLD UP!
This whole thread is about blaming the unions. Are you saying you disagree with that? Because if you do it is the first time you have disagreed with blaming unions.

[newtothegame]

This whole thread is about blaming the unions. Are you saying you disagree with that? Because if you do it is the first time you have disagreed with blaming unions.
Go back and read when and to whom I was interjecting the part about EXECUTIVE PAY........here's a hint, you may find it in the same one you quoted me from...#37 ....no where in there did I mention unions.....
My post was to RF and his claim about executives pay......
Nice to see you read whatever you want to in a thread (which is the norm for you)

[mostpost]

They are not so called raises. The performance of the underlying funds in someone's TSP or 401k is in no way counted as compensation.

Question - given that the USPS is bleeding money and will have to be bailed out by taxpayers, do you feel that postal workers should get raises?


Congress won't allow the reforms to need to be made at the USPS to be made until it is a full blown crisis, and given that fact, I don't necessarily think pay should be frozen. Should it be limited to just COLA until the mess is fixed? It's not the employees fault, for the most part the USPS is really good at what they do, but they don't charge enough and the business model is outdated. As I said, the mess won't be fixed until the taxpayers have to make good on the debts that the USPS can't pay, so its going to be a while until any reform happens.
If I were still working I would support a wage freeze. I would only do so if the freeze were accompanied by repeal of the law which requires prefunding of the Pension and Health benefit plans. The following is the last paragraph from the article Newt posted in #37.
Announcing $15.9 billion in losses for fiscal 2012, postal officials urged Congress to pass legislation that would address a host of issues, including a requirement that the Postal Service pre-fund retiree health care benefits. That mandate alone accounted for about 70 percent of the Postal Service’s net loss for fiscal 2012, officials said.

70% is a big percentage. It is more than twice all the other factors contributing to the deficit. Not only is it twice as much, it was completely unnecessary.

But having said that, it was not the only factor. You are right that the business model is outdated and needs to be changed. I myself use the internet and e-mail to do business. I order on line, pay on line, receive my retirement checks through direct deposit and communicate with my friends via e-mail and text message.

Still, about 30% of my close friends do not own computers. Drives me crazy!
Not every business has a web page. The Post Office is still a valuable component of our society.

[newtothegame]

If I were still working I would support a wage freeze. I would only do so if the freeze were accompanied by repeal of the law which requires prefunding of the Pension and Health benefit plans. The following is the last paragraph from the article Newt posted in #37.


70% is a big percentage. It is more than twice all the other factors contributing to the deficit. Not only is it twice as much, it was completely unnecessary.

But having said that, it was not the only factor. You are right that the business model is outdated and needs to be changed. I myself use the internet and e-mail to do business. I order on line, pay on line, receive my retirement checks through direct deposit and communicate with my friends via e-mail and text message.

Still, about 30% of my close friends do not own computers. Drives me crazy!
Not every business has a web page. The Post Office is still a valuable component of our society.
Ok postal guy, here's your chance to actually say something and have me listen as I truly do not know and wish to hear your side.....
As to the prefunding part, you wish to repeal, who negotiated that? Or is this a law which you union boys had nothing to do with?? I mean everything else is negotiated (at least in the union I was a part of). If it was in the negotiations, then TOUGH TITTY! Your union negotiated it and so ye shall live with!
But, the point is, as I have stated, poor management is poor management. If the USP is working with an outdated model, that's a sign of poor management to me! Not being able to keep up with the world is not anyone elses fault except for the business who failed to do so. Just as hostess made mistakes, so has the USPS. And if the lefts argument is that because of those poor management decisions they should go under, then the same would hold true for other business models (whether private or not). Personally, I say they should both go under if they can not run a profitable business.
As to whether or not the USPS is still viable, honestly I believe they are. But, significant changes need to be made and lets see if they are still viable AFTER the needed changes such as pricing.

[Actor]

Duh.
Do you have any clue what the line card for Hostess is?
And, more importantly, who the hell are you to tell them what to do?I'm not telling anyone what to do. Just musing on what should have been done, maybe. In any case, it seems it's too late to tell them what to do.

[Actor]

When I owned my gas station, I had to pay into the state UI, and left $20k there when I got out, never had anyone claim against me, but that money is gone forever. The compnay never gets it back no matter what.That's the way insurance works. For example, when you buy car insurance you never get any of the money back unless you have an accident. It's a bet that you will have an accident.

Unemployment insurance is a bet that the employee will be unemployed. The employee makes the bet and collects if he "wins." When the employer pays for the bet it's part of the employee's compensation.

Then there was quarterly FUTA, federal UI. On top of that, and this is where most people miss the cost of employment, I had to match FICA. That's right, For those who do not understand, the employee was taxed 7.65% and I had to match that amount! Fica is Medicare and Social Security. Has nothing to do with "insurance".But Medicare and Social Security are insurance, sort of. Both were conceived as insurance and based on actuarial principles, but then the courts got involved and turned them into political footballs.

[lsbets]

If I were still working I would support a wage freeze. I would only do so if the freeze were accompanied by repeal of the law which requires prefunding of the Pension and Health benefit plans. The following is the last paragraph from the article Newt posted in #37.


70% is a big percentage. It is more than twice all the other factors contributing to the deficit. Not only is it twice as much, it was completely unnecessary.

But having said that, it was not the only factor. You are right that the business model is outdated and needs to be changed. I myself use the internet and e-mail to do business. I order on line, pay on line, receive my retirement checks through direct deposit and communicate with my friends via e-mail and text message.

Still, about 30% of my close friends do not own computers. Drives me crazy!
Not every business has a web page. The Post Office is still a valuable component of our society.

You and I might have an exchange where we mostly agree and are cordial. I'm buying powerball tickets tomorrow.

I agree that the USPS is valuable in our society. I think you would agree that it has to shrink. Volume will continue to go down, and they have to adjust. They need to close facilities and reduce personnel. I have seen some satellite post offices, or whatever they are called, that are run privately and do other things to make money. Almost like a ups store. Expand those in areas that will lose actual post offices.

On personnel, since it is not a true crisis (yet) allow attrition to take its course. Don't replace all the retirees every year. That will require union cooperation, because it will reduce union jobs.

Pricing. I used the flat rate shipping a ton when I did a lot of shipping. It's a freakin steal. The rates are way too low compared to FedEx and ups. I would imagine all the other rates can go up 10-15 percent. They need to.

The biggest problem closing facilities will be congress. Mr rural congressman won't want to take a post office out of the town of 3000 people and listen to them bitch about going to the next town over the 4 times a year they actually go to the post office. Big city congressman won't want to listen to his constituents botch when they go from 4 to 3. As long as they think closing facilities will piss off the old ladies in their district who always vote, they won't let them close.

And stop Saturday delivery. It's not needed.

[JustRalph]

Give every dime spent on the Postal Service to FedEx and watch them develop a better service.

[Tom]

Overnight! :lol:

[HUSKER55]

guaranteed delivery included? :D

[Actor]

Tom, a cat person! :eek: I would have figured him a dog man all the way.Tom hates freeloaders. The cat probably pays rent. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

You and I might have an exchange where we mostly agree and are cordial. I'm buying powerball tickets tomorrow.

I agree that the USPS is valuable in our society. I think you would agree that it has to shrink. Volume will continue to go down, and they have to adjust. They need to close facilities and reduce personnel. I have seen some satellite post offices, or whatever they are called, that are run privately and do other things to make money. Almost like a ups store. Expand those in areas that will lose actual post offices.

On personnel, since it is not a true crisis (yet) allow attrition to take its course. Don't replace all the retirees every year. That will require union cooperation, because it will reduce union jobs.

Pricing. I used the flat rate shipping a ton when I did a lot of shipping. It's a freakin steal. The rates are way too low compared to FedEx and ups. I would imagine all the other rates can go up 10-15 percent. They need to.

The biggest problem closing facilities will be congress. Mr rural congressman won't want to take a post office out of the town of 3000 people and listen to them bitch about going to the next town over the 4 times a year they actually go to the post office. Big city congressman won't want to listen to his constituents botch when they go from 4 to 3. As long as they think closing facilities will piss off the old ladies in their district who always vote, they won't let them close.

And stop Saturday delivery. It's not needed.My rural GOP congressman raises a fit if they try close a post office in town of 300. In fact the GOP congressman in western Nebraska has kept post offices open in towns of less than 150 populations.

[Tom]

Court give go-ahead for liquidation.
Union still too stubborn to save the jobs.

The brands can now be sold.......and hopefully, back on the market next year, untouched by union hands.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.:lol:

[BlueShoe]

For all you sweet tooth devotees, Twinkies are set to make their triumphant return to store shelves near you on July 15. Pig out folks, and for those that hoarded a few hundred of them in hopes of them somehow becoming collectors items, sorry, better luck next time.
www.abcnews.go.com/us/twinkies-set-make-sweetest-comeback/story?id=19468409 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/us/twinkies-set-make-sweetest-comeback/story?id=19468409)