[TheRealThing]

Then why not just tell the truth about the amount that the executives were paid? Nobody should be surprised that the union lied about the increases or that you repeated their lies without investigating them any further.

The bottom line is that the union voted to put its members out of jobs. Attacking a company that will soon cease to exist may make liberals feel good but it is just one more sign that Obama's economic policies are continuing to fail.

And thus have we come full circle. The lay offs will continue to escalate and the liberals will bob and weave.

[TheRealVille]

Then why not just tell the truth about the amount that the executives were paid? Nobody should be surprised that the union lied about the increases or that you repeated their lies without investigating them any further.

The bottom line is that the union voted to put its members out of jobs. Attacking a company that will soon cease to exist may make liberals feel good, but it is just one more sign that Obama's economic policies are continuing to fail.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of as well as an earlier headline of this post incorrectly stated that Greg Rayburn received a 300 percent raise as CEO of Hostess as the company approached bankruptcy. Rayburn wasn't CEO of Hostess until after the company filed for bankruptcy. The post also incorrectly stated that he was paid a salary of up to $2,550,000 per year. His salary when he joined the company was $100,000 per month, according to a company spokesman.

"as approached bankruptcy"----Which one? I wonder what he made just before last weeks announcement, when they filed for liquidation permission?

His salary was 100,00 per month(1.2million a year) when he joined, but we are talking about during this last fiasco with the courts. How much of a raise had he given himself from the start until the end?

[Hoot Gibson]

"as approached bankruptcy"----Which one? I wonder what he made just before last weeks announcement, when they filed for liquidation permission?

His salary was 100,00 per month(1.2million a year) when he joined, but we are talking about during this last fiasco with the courts. How much of a raise had he given himself from the start until the end?

Well, you brought up this issue and presented us with bogus facts, so why don't you correct your own mistakes for a change? I will even give you a hint, there has been more than one CEO at Hostess during the bankruptcy period. The truth is out there, you just have to show an interest in finding it.

[TheRealVille]

They cut their pay to $1 after getting backlash from creditors for massive raises just before filing for bankruptcy.

That’s not a lot of dough.

Facing an internal revolt, Hostess Brands will roll back pay raises it doled out to top managers just months before filing for bankruptcy.

The maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs is slashing pay for its four highest-paid managers to $1 apiece until Hostess emerges from Chapter 11 or Dec. 31, whichever comes first.

In addition, CEO Gregory Rayburn said four junior execs will see their salaries reset to the amounts they were paid before last summer’s huge pay hikes.

“Those raises were the product of an assessment by our compensation committee and an independent compensation consulting firm and were meant to create stability while we sought to restructure the company,” Rayburn said in a letter to employees yesterday. “We are in different circumstances today.”

The move came after the company’s creditors slammed Hostess in court papers for jacking up managers’ salaries in July after it had already hired restructuring lawyers. Hostess hired advisers in March 2011 but didn’t file for bankruptcy until January.

The creditors accused Hostess of sidestepping rules designed to prevent distressed companies from paying big rewards to keep executives from bolting.

The disclosure put Hostess — already locked in tense negotiations with its unions over pension and health-care costs — at odds with rank-and-file workers who have gone without significant raises for years and had their 401(k)s frozen. Adding insult to injury, the company laid off 10 percent of its workers last summer.

“They are ripping us off from the top,” a Hostess salaried worker told The Post. “They eliminated all 401(k) matches in August while they got increases.”

A source familiar with the board’s thinking at the time said the raises were approved under former CEO Brian Driscoll. Hostess’ counsel and its restructuring adviser also reviewed the raises and believed they were legal, the source said.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...dw8xSPoPKN

[TheRealVille]

Hostess
Executive Salaries
2012 Raises

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000.
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000.
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000.
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000.
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008.

Workers Salaries
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hostess-...329177.htm

[Hoot Gibson]

They cut their pay to $1 after getting backlash from creditors for massive raises just before filing for bankruptcy.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ho...dw8xSPoPKN

You mean that at the time the union refused to make any concessions to save their jobs, the salaries of the executives had actually been slashed to $1 until the company emerged from bankruptcy? That paints an entirely different picture than what your union buddies painted for us, don'tcha think?

[Hoot Gibson]

Hostess
Executive Salaries
2012 Raises

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000.
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000.
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000.
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000.
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008.

Workers Salaries
http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Hostess-...329177.htm

More incorrect or misleading data. Driscoll is no longer the Hostess CEO.

Besides, you just told us that the executive salaries were cut to $1 before the union refused to make pay concessions to save their jobs. What more do you think that those executives should have given up to save the company?

[TheRealVille]

You mean that at the time the union refused to make any concessions to save their jobs, the salaries of the executives had actually been slashed to $1 until the company emerged from bankruptcy? That paints an entirely different picture than what your union buddies painted for us, don'tcha think?

Or December 31st., only after creditors pretty much forced them. Keep taking up for them, I know how you roll. The unions were tired of getting benefits cut, and not wanting to take an 8% pay cut, after all the mismanagement the company had been doing, and giving executives raises, until creditors forced their hand.

[TheRealThing]

More incorrect or misleading data. Driscoll is no longer the Hostess CEO.

Besides, you just told us that the executive salaries were cut to $1 before the union refused to make pay concessions to save their jobs. What more do you think that those executives should have given up to save the company?

The article was written on April 10th of this year. The membership had to know of the 1 dollar pay days.

[Hoot Gibson]

Or December 31st., only after creditors pretty much forced them. Keep taking up for them, I know how you roll. The unions were tired of getting benefits cut, and not wanting to take an 8% pay cut, after all the mismanagement the company had been doing, and giving executives raises, until creditors forced their hand.

You posted bogus information from the union's web site and now that you know that the CEO and top Hostess executives agreed to a temporary salary cut to $1, you still believe that the union made the right decision to refuse to an 8 percent cut to save their own jobs. Would it be fair to call you a union hack? nicker:

[TheRealVille]

I think I'll side with the workers that were getting screwed, and you all side with the mismanaging, high paid(did I mention mismanagement?)execs doing the screwing. I would expect nothing less.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think I'll side with the workers that were getting screwed, and you all side with the mismanaging, high paid(did I mention mismanagement?)execs doing the screwing. I would expect nothing less.

There is no side to take. Twinkies are history and the Bakers union killed them. The good news is that chances are that some other company will probably buy some of the Hostess brands during liquidation.

I would not be surprised if the next Ho-Ho that I eat is removed from the oven by a non-union oven operator, possibly from a Mexican oven.

The decline of private sector American unions continues thanks to the Obama economy.

[TheRealVille]

You posted bogus information from the union's web site and now that you know that the CEO and top Hostess executives agreed to a temporary salary cut to $1, you still believe that the union made the right decision to refuse to an 8 percent cut to save their own jobs. Would it be fair to call you a union hack? nicker:

The execs only took the cut after backlash from the creditors, and only then, and it would have only been for a few months. No, the workers shouldn't have taken more cuts to compensate for high paid executives that were running the company in the ground. It makes no difference to me if they were union or not. But, I fully expect you to keep twisting, it's what you do.

[TheRealVille]

There is no side to take. Twinkies are history and the Bakers union killed them. The good news is that chances are that some other company will probably buy some of the Hostess brands during liquidation.

I would not be surprised if the next Ho-Ho that I eat is removed from the oven by a non-union oven operator, possibly from a Mexican oven.

The decline of private sector American unions continues thanks to the Obama economy.

Poor management didn't? Have you read any of their management history since 2004?

[Hoot Gibson]

Poor management didn't? Have you read any of their management history since 2004?

Hostess was founded in 1930 and survived the Great Depression but the company could not survive four years of Barack Obama. Now another 18,500 Americans will have to decide whether to look for new jobs or file bogus disability claims and leave the workforce. Unfortunately, there are probably hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans who would have loved to have had those jobs.

[Wildcatk23]

Yesterday Hostess announced its intention to declare bankruptcy, close down all of its operations, and lay off approximately 18,500 workers. The news stunned many Americans, and sent shoppers to the local grocery store in an attempt to buy their last Twinkies and Ding Dongs. The commonly sold story by many media outlets (i.e. Fox News) is that Hostess went bankrupt because of a greedy and stubborn union which increased the company's labor costs beyond all reason. However, a deeper investigation of the facts shows that Hostess failed for a variety of reasons, many of them unrelated to unions.

Decreasing Demand

The number one culprit behind Hostess’ demise was a decrease in demand for many of their products. Hostess has blamed a union strike over the past week, but in reality Hostess has been struggling to make a profit for quite some time, and had already filed for bankruptcy once in 2004.

Hostess itself admitted to decreased demand in a recent statement it released to debtors. Here is a quote from that statement via Fortune,

"The Debtors have experienced a significant decline in the demand for their branded sweet goods and bread products. According to data from Information Resources Incorporated (the "IRI"), an independent market research concern that reports sales trends in most supermarkets (excluding mass merchandisers, club stores and discount stores), the Debtors' total unit volume of branded sweet goods declined by 4.3% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012, and revenues from the Debtors' branded sweet good products declined 1.5% during the same period. The Debtors' total unit volume of branded bread products declined by 9.6% during the latest 52 weeks ending September 5, 2012. Revenues related to the Debtors' bread products declined 5.3% from the comparable period one year ago."

Furthermore, Hostess believed this trend would continue,

"The Debtors believe that they will continue to experience reduced demand for their products based on various factors, including some of the factors discussed in greater detail below."

Hostess primary products are Wonder Bread and “junk food” like Twinkies. Over the past decade carbohydrates and fatty foods have become less popular. Many supermarket chains sell their own brand of bread at cheaper costs, and also feature a bakery to sell freshly baked bread. Parents who used to put a Ding Dong in their child's lunch bag everyday now put an apple or orange in there instead. Many of the consumers rushing to buy Twinkies now have not bought Hostess products in many years, which tells you all you need to know about the company’s struggles.

A Mountain of Debt

In addition to decreasing demand, Hostess has also struggled because it was burdened with over $860 million in debt with just $1 billion in assets. The company has over 100,000 creditors, including the labor unions and pension funds which represent the employees, and will now undoubtedly lose out on some of their claims because of Hostess newest bankruptcy.

A debt-to-assets ratio like that ultimately limits how a company can operate. While Hostess' competitors spend money on advertising or technological improvements to increase sales or make their operations more efficient, Hostess was paying off interest on their debt. According to Outside the Beltway, Hostess was using an antiquated distribution which undoubtedly affected the bottom line of a company that relies on distribution so heavily (imagine all the places one can get a Twinkie). Eventually, the company finds itself in a position where it can no longer even pay the debt itself, hence the bankruptcy.

Poor Management

Finally, as noted by Think Progress, Hostess mysteriously tripled the pay of their CEO just months before asking union members to take a pay cut to “save the company.” One could understand how union members found it hard to believe the company was strapped for cash after raising the CEO’s salary from approximately $750,000 to $2,555,000. Nine other executives at the company also received massive pay raises earlier this year, which now appear to be part of a “golden parachute” package. Other CEO's, like the head of American Airlines, freezed or reduced their pay over the past four years when they asked unions to make similar sacrifices.

It is also worth remembering that Hostess executive agreed to pay the labor unions their high wages and generous pensions in an earlier contract. Much like NHL owners, the Hostess executives were trying to take back an earlier contractual promise made to the union.

Conclusion

It is easy to blame the death of Hostess on labor unions, but the reality is that the company was probably going down regardless. But take heart America, Hostess' popular brands like Twinkie surely will be sold off as part of the bankruptcy. The Twinkie will still be on American store shelves in the future, just made by a better run company.


http://www.examiner.com/article/the-real...t-bankrupt

[TheRealVille]

Hostess was founded in 1930 and survived the Great Depression but the company could not survive four years of Barack Obama. Now another 18,500 Americans will have to decide whether to look for new jobs or file bogus disability claims and leave the workforce. Unfortunately, there are probably hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans who would have loved to have had those jobs.

Was Obama around in 2004 to hurt them? They have filed bankruptcy twice in less than a decade.

[TheRealVille]

I guess those $17 dollar an hour bakers are the cause of all this. Someone help me out here. What does an 8% cut from 17 dollars look like?

[vector]

I guess those $17 dollar an hour bakers are the cause of all this. Someone help me out here. What does an 8% cut from 17 dollars look like?

they just want to blame there president for everything

[Hoot Gibson]

they just want to blame there president for everything

You have got to be a conservative trying to make American liberals look stupid. If so, well done, sir! :Thumbs:

Using the irony of an imaginary liberal accusing a conservative of blaming a liberal president (who has blamed all of his problems on Bush) for "everything" is a stroke of literary genius, vector. I think I have misjudged you. Keep up the good work! nicker:

(If I am wrong, please make sure that you always have assistance when crossing busy streets - or just stay safe in your basement.)

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess those $17 dollar an hour bakers are the cause of all this. Someone help me out here. What does an 8% cut from 17 dollars look like?

It looks like a job that can finance one's search for a better job.

[WideRight05]

they just want to blame there president for everything

lol

[sawmill]

Unions are terminal cancer.

[TheRealThing]

I guess those $17 dollar an hour bakers are the cause of all this. Someone help me out here. What does an 8% cut from 17 dollars look like?

It looks like this $1.36, which is not worth losing one's job over. I tried to tell you that a contact isn't worth the paper it's written on if there is no demand or money to back it up.

[Wildcatk23]

Acts 20:35 ESV

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

[TheRealThing]

Acts 20:35 ESV

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Great post, the weak are different from the able bodied, right?

[vector]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2...care-math/

[TheRealVille]

:Thumbs: True dat.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2...care-math/

[vector]

:Thumbs: True dat.

they can't handle the truth 2 much faux inglepar

[TheRealThing]

they can't handle the truth 2 much faux inglepar

While you two are still locked up in you're mutual embraces of admiration, you might want to consider a couple little problems. First, the government is now in the process of ordering business owners to insure their emloyees. And of course, the other side of the coin is the fact that of those who are not likely to be covered by their employer, which by the way comprise the vast majority of all those who will be forced into this president's ridiculous delusions of what health care should look like, will need to have somebody fund the costs of their health insurance as well as the subsequent health care costs, which will be 40%. So much for the "land of the free". And you guys are high fiving each other.

If you two can afford to pay for other people's health care that's fine, most of the rest of us cannot. I guess now you will feign an inability to recognize that the government's forcing working folks and business owners to fund the nation's health care bill is Orwelian?