[Hoot Gibson]

Misread. You have in the past put most of the blame on unions when companies fail, or layoff.

For every bad union contract, there is a weak team of managers who negotiated its terms and signed it. I have never claimed otherwise.

In this case, regardless of whether the Hostess management team was weak or strong, union members who elected to destroy their own jobs are responsible for their own fate. A company struggling to emerge from a reorganization bankruptcy is not in position to make many concessions. The union's leadership did a poor job of managing their members' expectations and everybody involved ended up losing everything now.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Hoot is absolutely correct. Management cave ins are an important part of this doomed equation. Greedy unions run by intellectually inferior thugs is the other major part.

By the way, the Papa John's pizza was outstanding.

[TheRealVille]

For every bad union contract, there is a weak team of managers who negotiated its terms and signed it. I have never claimed otherwise.

In this case, regardless of whether the Hostess management team was weak or strong, union members who elected to destroy their own jobs are responsible for their own fate. A company struggling to emerge from a reorganization bankruptcy is not in position to make many concessions. The union's leadership did a poor job of managing their members' expectations and everybody involved ended up losing everything now.

Except for 300% raises for high execs? :Thumbs:

[TheRealVille]

Hoot is absolutely correct. Management cave ins are an important part of this doomed equation. Greedy unions run by intellectually inferior thugs is the other major part.

By the way, the Papa John's pizza was outstanding.

What about those humongous raises for bosses?

[Hoot Gibson]

Except for 300% raises for high execs? :Thumbs:

I am sure that the union bosses used those raises to persuade the membership to vote themselves out jobs. Are those workers and their families better off now than they were last week because they bought into the class warfare argument? The really showed The Man who was boss, didn't they?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

What about those humongous raises for bosses?

Well, since the "bosses" are most always the major investors in the company, they have their sizable investment at risk. Unlike the workers who get paid regardless of business performance as long as the company remains in operation, the "bosses" thrive or fail depending upon the success of the company. They have the entire risk. The workers have no risk. They punch in, punch out eight hours later, and forget the company for the next sixteen hours. "Bosses" don't have that luxury. "Bosses" are responsible and their investment is on the line twenty-four hours a day, every day. There are no days off or vacations when the "bosses" can forget the company.

Because of all of this risk and responsibility, "bosses" are entitled to any bounty remaining after all obligations of the company are paid.

If your union boys don't like the situation, let them become "bosses" and see how the real world of capitalism works.

[TheRealVille]

Well, since the "bosses" are most always the major investors in the company, they have their sizable investment at risk. Unlike the workers who get paid regardless of business performance as long as the company remains in operation, the "bosses" thrive or fail depending upon the success of the company. They have the entire risk. The workers have no risk. They punch in, punch out eight hours later, and forget the company for the next sixteen hours. "Bosses" don't have that luxury. "Bosses" are responsible and their investment is on the line twenty-four hours a day, every day. There are no days off or vacations when the "bosses" can forget the company.

Because of all of this risk and responsibility, "bosses" are entitled to any bounty remaining after all obligations of the company are paid.

If your union boys don't like the situation, let them become "bosses" and see how the real world of capitalism works.

Looks like these bosses helped price their company out of business with all those raises last year, and this year.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Looks like these bosses helped price their company out of business with all those raises last year, and this year.

Regardless of the spin, I would think that your union boys are in a lot more of a world of hurt than are the "bosses".

"Bosses" are in limited quantity. They have the ability and smarts to move on. Union workers, and other such individuals, are a dime a dozen. The only thing is, they won't be earning a dime. Of course, that means they will be living off of unemployment.

Guess who pays in the unemployment contributions Why, the "bosses", of course. Workers do not contribute to unemployment. Those amounts are paid solely by the employer- the "bosses". So, in the end, the union boys will continue to depend upon the "bosses" for their support.

Maybe, like so many of those leaving unemployment, they can file for disability when their unemployment runs out. The possibilities are endless for the takers.

[TheRealVille]

Regardless of the spin, I would think that your union boys are in a lot more of a world of hurt than are the "bosses".

"Bosses" are in limited quantity. They have the ability and smarts to move on. Union workers, and other such individuals, are a dime a dozen. The only thing is, they won't be earning a dime. Of course, that means they will be living off of unemployment.

Guess who pays in the unemployment contributions Why, the "bosses", of course. Workers do not contribute to unemployment. Those amounts are paid solely by the employer- the "bosses". So, in the end, the union boys will continue to depend upon the "bosses" for their support.

Maybe, like so many of those leaving unemployment, they can file for disability when their unemployment runs out. The possibilities are endless for the takers.

That's debatable. Would you hire a boss that just ran a multi million dollar company into the ground? As for these bosses, they aren't listed as being owners, that I can find.

[Bob Seger]

Regardless of the spin, I would think that your union boys are in a lot more of a world of hurt than are the "bosses".

"Bosses" are in limited quantity. They have the ability and smarts to move on. Union workers, and other such individuals, are a dime a dozen. The only thing is, they won't be earning a dime. Of course, that means they will be living off of unemployment.

Guess who pays in the unemployment contributions Why, the "bosses", of course. Workers do not contribute to unemployment. Those amounts are paid solely by the employer- the "bosses". So, in the end, the union boys will continue to depend upon the "bosses" for their support.

Maybe, like so many of those leaving unemployment, they can file for disability when their unemployment runs out. The possibilities are endless for the takers.

Exactly 100% correct. I am always amused by those who claim they are going to draw unemployment benefits for the simple reason '"that have paid into it for all these years". Unemployment insurance is 100% the sole resource from a pool that every employer pays into. An employee does not pay one red cent into it. It just goes to show how dumb a big portion of the population is when it comes to these things.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

That's debatable. Would you hire a boss that just ran a multi million dollar company into the ground? As for these bosses, they aren't listed as being owners, that I can find.

I doubt that I would have to make that choice. I don't think the "boss" will have any trouble finding another opportunity. Remember, workers, including union boy types, are a dime a dozen. "Bosses" are in short supply. And, after all, it is, and should be, a matter of supply and demand.

Regardless of what "list" you are referring to, most "bosses" are also "owners" at some level.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Exactly 100% correct. I am always amused by those who claim they are going to draw unemployment benefits for the simple reason '"that have paid into it for all these years". Unemployment insurance is 100% the sole resource from a pool that every employer pays into. An employee does not pay one red cent into it. It just goes to show how dumb a big portion of the population is when it comes to these things.

As usual, Bob Seger is absolutely correct. Workers contribute nothing to their unemployment. It is another benefit for which workers should thank their employers.

[TheRealVille]

As usual, Bob Seger is absolutely correct. Workers contribute nothing to their unemployment. It is another benefit for which workers should thank their employers.

Would they pay it if they didn't have to? It is a tax, right? Maybe we should thank the lawmakers that brought about unemployment insurance tax payments to the IRS? Employers pay a 6% tax, but they get a credit of up to 5.4%. According to the article, employers pay an average of $42 dollars per employee. I wouldn't do much back patting, I'm sure most employees help the company make that 42 dollars back per year.

To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[31]
The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[32] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[30] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now, effective after June 30, 2011, 6.0 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[31] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year.[31] Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.6 percent (6.0 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $42.00 per employee, per year (.006 X $7,000 = $42.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[31] In the United States, unemployment insurance tax rates use experience rating.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

[TheRealThing]

No one is placing the blame on union workers. Now the Neanderthal leaders of the unions are something else. Your boy, Trumka, is a perfect example of the Neanderthal mentality. He is also a good example of social promotion in our public schools and colleges. Check out his salary and benefits.

Perfect example if I ever heard one. He is always standing behind Obama somewhere in countless photo ops.

[TheRealThing]

That's debatable. Would you hire a boss that just ran a multi million dollar company into the ground? As for these bosses, they aren't listed as being owners, that I can find.

RealVille nobody likes the idea of a manager making way above and beyond what he deserves. But, there is a vast divide between union membership and management. We negotiate with management for wages and conditions and there are a huge number of comparable market scenarios to justify the level of wage and benefits for management to use during these negotiations. At any rate, unions don't have the right to decide wage limits for managers and or owners. This is one more example of how union leaders of today try to incite membership into a froth using unethical methods.

[TheRealVille]

RealVille nobody likes the idea of a manager making way above and beyond what he deserves. But, there is a vast divide between union membership and management. We negotiate with management for wages and conditions and there are a huge number of comparable market scenarios to justify the level of wage and benefits for management to use during these negotiations. At any rate, unions don't have the right to decide wage limits for managers and or owners. This is one more example of how union leaders of today try to incite membership into a froth using unethical methods.

Should the CEO's have cut wages and pensions of workers while at the same time giving themselves 300% raises?

[Hoot Gibson]

Should the CEO's have cut wages and pensions of workers while at the same time giving themselves 300% raises?

I am pretty sure that Hostess has only one CEO.

[TheRealThing]

Should the CEO's have cut wages and pensions of workers while at the same time giving themselves 300% raises?

As usual, my post buzzes an unmanned tower. CEO's, different universe, try to understand that.

[TheRealVille]

^ So they should be able to give themselves enormous raises while in bankruptcy?


BTW, is there any reason to be a smartass?

[TheRealVille]

I am pretty sure that Hostess has only one CEO.

Ok, 1 CEO and 9-11 execs got raises then. Better?

[TheRealThing]

^ So they should be able to give themselves enormous raises while in bankruptcy?


BTW, is there any reason to be a smartass?

Nothing wrong with a little humor. I don't know, maybe he hadn't had a raise in a long time of any size, and bumped it up to match other execs in his level of expertise while they were in reorganization. Who knows?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Would they pay it if they didn't have to? It is a tax, right? Maybe we should thank the lawmakers that brought about unemployment insurance tax payments to the IRS? Employers pay a 6% tax, but they get a credit of up to 5.4%. According to the article, employers pay an average of $42 dollars per employee. I wouldn't do much back patting, I'm sure most employees help the company make that 42 dollars back per year.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

Your knowledge of the unemployment insurance contribution rates is what I would expect from a union member. Your post is ridiculous. There is no need for me to explain it to you because you would not understand it and you would claim I am wrong. Believe it or not, TheRealVille, I am also a Certified Public Accountant. I know the law. I know how it is applied. And, from your post, you don't know manure.

And as for saying the employer wouldn't pay the FUI and KUI (That's what they are called.) unless forced to do so, that is another example of your cureless stupidity. Does anyone, even a union member, pay any tax that he/she isn't forced by law to pay?

You, TheRealVille are clueless. You are in way over your head. You are embarrassing yourself.

[TheRealVille]

Your knowledge of the unemployment insurance contribution rates is what I would expect from a union member. Your post is ridiculous. There is no need for me to explain it to you because you would not understand it and you would claim I am wrong. Believe it or not, TheRealVille, I am also a Certified Public Accountant. I know the law. I know how it is applied. And, from your post, you don't know manure.

And as for saying the employer wouldn't pay the FUI and KUI (That's what they are called.) unless forced to do so, that is another example of your cureless stupidity. Does anyone, even a union member, pay any tax that he/she isn't forced by law to pay?

You, TheRealVille are clueless. You are in way over your head. You are embarrassing yourself.

To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[31]
The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[32] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[30] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now, effective after June 30, 2011, 6.0 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[31] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year.[31] Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.6 percent (6.0 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $42.00 per employee, per year (.006 X $7,000 = $42.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[31] In the United States, unemployment insurance tax rates use experience rating.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits

[Hoot Gibson]

Ok, 1 CEO and 9-11 execs got raises then. Better?

Not much. The only source that you have given us about the alleged raises came from a union web site. Maybe a union that has just voted itself out of 18,500 jobs is not the best source of information regarding the salaries of Hostess executives. Your sources of information never cease to amaze me.

[INDENT]

From Huffington Post:

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.

[/INDENT]

[Harry Rex Vonner]

You prove my point when you reference Wikipedia. You have a Wikipedia level knowledge of most subjects and, obviously, a Wikipedia level mind.

Debating points with you is the same as a meat grinder debating a roll of bologna.

[TheRealVille]

Not much. The only source that you have given us about the alleged raises came from a union web site. Maybe a union that has just voted itself out of 18,500 jobs is not the best source of information regarding the salaries of Hostess executives. Your sources of information never cease to amaze me.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Here is more from your link you left out, conveniently.

Hostess’ creditors accused the company in April of manipulating executive salaries with the aim of getting around bankruptcy compensation rules, the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. In response, Rayburn announced he would cut his pay and that of other executives to $1 until Dec. 31 or whenever Hostess came out of bankruptcy.

That was after Hostess had already awarded the company's top four executives raises of between 75 and 80 percent, even though the company had already hired restructuring lawyers, according to the WSJ.

The situation isn't specific to Hostess. Over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay, according to a July report.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is more from your link you left out, conveniently.

I always excerpt the relevant part of articles that I link, which is consistent with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. What I posted shows Huffington Post correcting the union propaganda that you posted.

Ironically, the information that you posted, which you claim that I "conveniently" left out, also contradicts your claim that the executives received a 300 percent pay raise. Thank you for posting it. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

I always excerpt the relevant part of articles that I link, which is consistent with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. What I posted shows Huffington Post correcting the union propaganda that you posted.

Ironically, the information that you posted, which you claim that I "conveniently" left out, also contradicts your claim that the executives received a 300 percent pay raise. Thank you for posting it. nicker:

:thatsfunn Not to mention the fact that the CEO in question, wasn't the CEO in question!

[TheRealVille]

I always excerpt the relevant part of articles that I link, which is consistent with fair use principles under U.S. copyright law. What I posted shows Huffington Post correcting the union propaganda that you posted.

Ironically, the information that you posted, which you claim that I "conveniently" left out, also contradicts your claim that the executives received a 300 percent pay raise. Thank you for posting it. nicker:

They might have been wrong on the %, but the raises, while in bankruptcy btw, were still staggering. All the while their creditors were questioning their raises while going through bankruptcy. The creditors don't take up them like a few here. They were getting screwed, you all weren't.

[Hoot Gibson]

They might have been wrong on the %, but the raises, while in bankruptcy btw, were still staggering.

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.